The Framers' intentions are important, but should not override every consideration. They were not gods, and a constitution that rigidly locks itself tight is doomed.
There is a process for altering the constitution. If you don't like the constitution, use the process. If you don't like the process, well, you're still going to have to use the process to change it if you want to promise to love the law. Re-interpreting the constitution or its amendments when the authors left copious writings to explain what they meant and why they meant it (which will have been reflected in the actual arguments used to get it passed) is scandalous bullshit and nobody should be giving it a pass, let alone encouraging it. Strict constitutionalism is the job of the Supreme Court. It's Congress' job to change the Constitution, not the Supremes.
We are not rigidly locked to the constitution we have today. We have an amendment process, and if you want to change the constitution, you should use that process. If your changes to the constitution do not merit a constitutional amendment, then you should not be making them.