ROFL. No.
There is no person within the federal government who has an incentive to constrain the powers of the federal government at the expense of states etc. The Senate used to, but they no longer do. Every elected official has a very powerful incentive to concentrate ever more power in the federal government. Even elections exacerbate the problem, as they are incredibly expensive to win. You don't get big donations by telling fat cats that your goal is to reduce your power as an elected official to give them a return on their investment.
No they didn't. They only gave the people the House to elect, and the states got the President and the Senate. Granted, winning the Presidency could be done quite handily by appealing to the people instead of the states, but the early system of no running mates even gave the executive branch a beautiful schizophrenia at times. The founders set the states against the federal government, and the branches of the federal government against each other in order to deliberately make it incredibly difficult to concentrate power in any one part of the government. A broad and flexible taxation power was palatable to them only because the states had a tight leash on the federal government. That no longer exists. Not surprisingly DC has turned into a black hole of power.
You are committing the very same error you accuse everybody else of doing: imagining that everything "original" was as you wish it to have been. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was out of ignorance rather than a willful lie. Yes, I can be that charitable.