The scope of discussion, I guess, would be in the form of a question. Given: There are numerous ways to interpret the US Constitution, from strict construction-ism through a whole panoply of increasingly liberal positions. Can we decide whether one is better than another? [Alternately, for those who have difficulty in going beyond Aristotelian logic, which is 'right'?]
This ['better'] leads us straight down the path to an exploration of the functions of human society and an enumeration of its goals. The classic triumvirate of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would perhaps better be replaced by food, clothing, shelter and health care as a starting point for discussion.
Within the framework of your question, I am unsure given where we are now that there is a better, or more correct, position to take on the Constitution.
Truth be told, my opinion of the original US Constitution is that it was a brilliant but very flawed document. Even with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights we have this sunshine and roses opinion looking back but the Constitution did not apply to everyone equally, including at the point the ink dried. More than just the context of the period including slavery, the majority of the intention was dealing with the protections of white landowners who wanted a say so in governance but elected for a "minimal government" approach that intentionally threw issues beyond federal governance to the states to figure out no matter what their own State Constitutions granted the individual. Again the idea being white landowners, who decided on the direction of the nation politically while they almost from the start decided to grow governance and grow intervention in society and the economy.
Even by the time of the 13th Amendment we already saw great political division *not* in the limitation of government but the ideological application of governing. Expansions and a civil war thrown in did not help but in the end the result was both aristocracy and authority not envisioned by the original authors. By that time we already had a de facto central bank, plenty of law on the books, handling international issues including trade, and enough state to state dispute to keep the Supreme Court busy. Government was already growing, guided by plenty of competing ideologies, it just became exponential as we made our way into the 1900's in how far government presence increased.
The point is there is no such thing as "strict constitutionalism" as that was discarded the moment we had our 1st government.
The other point is today's interpretations from various "conservatism" or "liberal" ideologies are just flip sides of the same coin. Neither one is really all about individualism, that is just more bumper sticker thinking. Today's conservatism is just as likely to ideologically agree to increases in authority in the areas of military, centralized and monopolistic business models, social conservatism to the point of marginalization (think Islamic social conservatism,) theocracy, and even wide spread domestic spying capability as today's liberalism is just as likely to agree to increases in authority towards economic and/or social outcomes via any number of means that literally means collectivism to the point of failed upon failed socialism models of government elsewhere.
What I am trying to tell you is through Constitutional interpretation, laws and regulation, and sheer self serving modern aristocratic thinking the goal of government today is how to apply authority to political ends. None of which is specified as Constitutionally sound.
More harsh truth be told the Supreme Court invented law just as much with Roe v. Wade as it did with the infamous Citizens United decision. Another phrase for precedence is passive acceptance of political direction having nothing to do with Constitutional standards. But the Supreme Court is not alone in this, Congress gives itself all sorts of authority to damn near act like the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch, just as numerous Presidents do with Executive Orders pretending to be "legislation-light."
If there is a better, or more correct interpretation, of the Constitution it is... we need to start over with something more sound if the expectation is ever to limit the Federal Government from giving itself expanded power and scope with each passing Administration, Congress, and session of the Supreme Court.
But fair warning, in our modern times there is a balance between individualism and community (just as there is a balance between market and planned economics, just as there is a balance between belief and fact, etc.) If we lose sight of that governance still wins, and so does authoritarianism that today's prevailing ideologies cling to more strongly than Baptists do the Bible.
