That's the whole idea of the SC. The Founding Fathers (I sadly admit) are the equivalent of today's Left. They thought men of Reason would occupy those offices - having attained those positions through citizens of Reason.
Who ever said "the Great Experiment" would be a success in the long run?
They envision a final result in which they themselves will have no need for politicians and will hold lifelong positions of pure power, without any need for elections or any other means of maintaining the pretense that they only want the best for their subjects.
When Congress was drafting the 10th Amendment there was great debate over whether the federal government should be restricted to the "powers expressly delegated" under the Constitution, or just the "powers delegated." The first version was that of the Articles of Confederation, and it was rejected because it was felt that a change in the Constitution would be needed every time the federal government wanted to pass a law to fulfill its mandates, if that law was slightly different from previous laws. The argument was that the power to carry the mails implied, for example, the power to provide pensions for postal workers, or insure the security of the mails, etc. The federal government was not going to be restricted to just precisely those powers mentioned in the Constitution. So from the beginning, interpretation was to be important and the door was opened to a great growth of federal power.
One could still argue that the powers of the federal government are restricted to the few broad areas more explicitly delegated in the Constitution: mails, currency, foreign and interstate trade, war, patents and copyrights, some aspects of law and justice, etc. But clever lawyers, judges and politicians have always been able to justify other powers, "necessary" to exercise these few powers effectively.
Even Jefferson and Madison claimed powers in excess of these when they felt it necessary. If government is given the power to coin money, it eventually claims the power to establish a bank. If it is allowed to regulate interstate commerce it will eventually want to build roads. If it is charged with promoting the general welfare, it may be offered a land deal that it finds impossible to pass up, in spite of the absence of any explicit authorization in the Constitution.
Joe is always in the position of the Jefferson or Madison of the Federalist Era. Their views changed, or developed, or discovered exceptions when they themselves were in power (though it was Madison himself who argued against inserting the "expressly" back in 1790). It's just as well that he doesn't trust politicians, since they won't hesitate to claim powers for themselves when they can. The other side of the coin is that something like the Louisiana Purchase, whose legality was questioned at the time, probably was a great benefit for the country.
Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, was right about what would happen. But the country saw the risk and took that path anyway, because the Articles of Confederation had deficiencies of its own.
It may be that someday we will return to a more limited government, but it's not 100% accurate to say that this was exactly or entirely what the framers intended. To be sure, they never dreamed of the dozens of alphabet agencies that we have now, but they were quite willing to make use of "implied powers" when they thought it "necessary and proper."
Everything fails in the long run. The Great Experiment, at this point, is kind of like an old car that we keep fixing up by installing inferior quality replacement parts. Nobody seems to be manufacturing any George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons any more, so we keep hoping that the Chuck Schumers and the Barbara Boxers and the Tom Daschles will do. Unfortunately, I think the replacement parts, while keeping the engine running for a while longer, actually do damage to the engine. One of these days, we're going to get to the point where a whole new engine is required.