The questions remain relevant. Most conservatives believe, as you do, that the Constitution is fine, that the only problem is that no one follows it in the way you think it ought to be followed. If only they'd interpret it the way you believe it is supposed to be interpreted, it would work great.
But what if you are wrong? What if what you are asking for is not possible? The only thing that matters in the end is what the document actually says, and how the actors under its power apply it. Intent means nothing. And under the Constitution, no one mode of interpretation carries more legal weight than another.
The convention was held in secret. The notes on the Convention didn't even come out until after ratification. The people, when they ratified the Constitution, had only the document itself to go by. They didn't have any clear idea of intent.
And the framers didn't all intend the same thing. Hamilton intended to strengthen the national government and weaken the states as much as possible. Madison intended to thread the needle. Others intended to make the best of a bad situation (they didn't like the Constitution, but tried to make it as good as they good.)
In short, there was no uniform "intent." Then you go and look at how the Nationalists(Federalists) governed---judicial review, implied powers, occasional unconstitutional acts (Louisiana purchase) and you see that your argument is tilting at windmills. It's longing for a time that never was.
Yawn. You are a broken record. The fact is that representatives of the states gave a Constitution to the states to consider and all thirteen ratified it.