It's a good turn of phrase. I wish I could say I have a solution. I would say that the problem is twofold.
a. Implied powers--the Constitution provided for implied powers, whereas the old Articles had expressly delegated powers over. This was an intentional change, and a bad one. Because the question then arises, again and again, is this an implied power? It gets sent to the courts, where the rules of precedent provide the basis for the textual drift.
b. Article 3--there has to be some better way to establish a national judiciary. It is unaccountable. The judicial branch is the source of the drift, and it's a fatal design flaw. There is no appeal. They are co-equal to the other branches and hence untouchable. Precedents from past generations weigh on us and we can't do very much about it.
So, no, I don't have a solid answer except to say that I believe we should have a system of expressly delegated powers only, and a judicial department that is accountable.
My solution is a moral populace that interprets the rules.
My problem with this is that, to me, it's like saying we need foxes that don't eat chickens.
My problem with this is that, to me, it’s like saying we need foxes that don’t eat chickens.
________________________________________________________
It is my FRiend and this is the nature of sin. We are all fallen and all fallible. We have all missed the mark. When you trust anyone other than God your trust is misplaced. Men will interpret any document written — and they can choose to ignore it. I like your idea of lack of implied powers by the way. Would need a mechanism for very fast modification though, when unforseen emergencies arise, and that very mechanism will make the entire document subject to rapid change limited only by the politics of the moment . . . which would then make the document meaningless and constantly changed. it would end up being one of those state constitutions with 2,400 amendments, each one a field open to the lawyers and judges to write law . . .