This isn't true at all. There was a group of founders led intellectually by Alexander Hamilton who believed in a strong central government and who saw the federal Constitution as giving that government very broad powers.
This is in opposition to the Jeffersonian view of limited government, the primacy of the states, the ideal of the yeoman farmer, etc.
> Because the people in power like power, and because the populace is complacent enough to allow it, they ignore any structural inconveniences like the fact that a strict reading of the Constitution forbids almost all federal programs and activities that exist today.
This also isn't true. Setting aside whether the Constitution forbids, say, the Department of Education or whatever, we have the government we have because that's what people have voted for. FDR was elected president 4 times. The New Deal was popular at the time. He wasn't cramming it down the throats of a credulous population.
It's a good thing that the Constitution is malleable enough to continue to support the wishes of a majority of Americans. If it isn't, we can either amended it so that it does (which we have done when needed), or, in an extreme case, replace it completely.
The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
There is no way that basing a representative democracy on geographical cohorts can be optimal. I assume it is based originally on logistical constraints, but today is something we just accept because it is how it has always been done.
Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the political arena based on the scope of the issues allowed to be legislated and not on the origin of the legislator? Or maybe we just need a stronger 10th amendment.
It will never happen. I know. Wishful thinking maybe.