The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be amended. And to amend it, a major part of society (both within government and among the electorate) have to be behind it. If there’s something wrong with the Constitution, or if something is determined to be missing, we’re not stuck with it.
But until it gets changed, its current content should be the framework for all government action.
I don’t consider it really a “moral” thing in the first place. At most, it becomes some overarching collective “morality” of society at large. That “morality” may or may not be something I personally see as a moral stance on the issue at hand, but I’m just one guppy in the entire societal ocean.
But you mentioned intent. We have history – no matter how hard Big Brother might try to hide it. But if we (generic) as the governed overwhelmingly want to change meaning from the original intent, we have the amendment process. The founders wrote that process into the Constitution for a purpose. Even if a hypothetical amendment wanted to move us to a monarchy or to pure communism, there is a process. Let the debate ensue. Let the chips fall where they may. It’s what our Constitution provides. It’s what we should stick to.
Constitutions and governments are established by men, based on the morals of those men (used as a catch all for society). The constitution and government will only be as good as the morals guiding those who create them. While it would be hoped that those morals are grounded in universal just beliefs, man has free will, which means they can also reject universal just beliefs.
We’ve allowed “extra-Constitutional” methods to guide government for so long that it’s now the standard.
I was only commenting on what the Constitution SHOULD be vis a vis government guidance/control.
You and I would agree on that. However we’re only two guppies. Some day “societal morality” could morph into something totally sinister and be so widespread that it could drive the Constitution into evil corners of human existence. All we can do is exert our influence on our little eddies in the vast ocean of society, and hope that there are enough other guppies out there that our collective efforts avert such a change.
But never forget, there are counter-guppies fighting for the opposite.
Do you want to direct this into a religious discussion?
Individuals can be guided by their own religions (whether formal or informal), but the Constitution itself is specifically amended to prevent its overall guidance to be religious. Nothing says its principles cannot agree with this-or-that religion, but it cannot say a given thing because this-or-that religion holds a particular tenet.
public policy:
counter-guppies. 
