The problem with drawing such a line is this: to draw it, more often than not you have to bend and twist the Constitution, bastardizing the concept of original intent, in order to justify drawing it. By doing that, you give your opponent the justification for bending and twisting the Constitution and original intent to justify their platform. Either the Constitution means what it means or it doesn't.
Two things. One, the original Constitution/BOR has already been bent and twisted by 17 amendments, albeit constitutionally. The 14th, 16th, and 17th being the most egregious.
The 14th amendment, for example, has turned our nation into a judicial oligarchy -- five justices interpret and define the laws for all 50 states. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 16th taxes the income of only some citizens, and does so mecilessly and unequally. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 17th has removed the voice of state government from Congress. This was not the original intent, now was it?
Two, what do you propose we do? Stand by and do nothing while our society goes down the toilet? The death of our great experiment, a federal republic, is preferable to violating your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
Well, I don't agree. I think that what we have is worth saving. I don't agree that we are "violating" the constitution. Moreover, if you can show me that "original intent" means "sole intent" then I'll agree with you that is how it should be applied. If not, then "original intent" is merely interesting in an historical sense, and plays no role in current judicial interpretation.