It always tickles me when people talk about getting back to what the "founders" intended. Mostly because the founders rarely agreed on anything, especially the expansion of the federal government, and also because what the founders created originally was a piece of sh**. America was poorly governed for many, many decades following it's creation. The Constitution was so weak it was unable to preserve the union, which dissolved temporarily during the Civil War. Jefferson, Adams and Washington were all skeptical of it's value, and definitely worked tirelessly to hold a new and volatile nation together. That's why it irks me so much to hear Palin invoke the founders, usually inappropriately and or inaccurately. It's like saying "they don't support the troops" or "palin' around with terrorists". It's just a talking point, and a ridiculous one at that. It's too deep a subject to simply finger point to one President and say "he's not upholding [the founders'] Constitution" and "he is". Frankly, any given President (or any public official) is in line with some founders more than others. Many of the intents of the founders we, in the modern era, would find utterly ridiculous. Jefferson wished to abolish all or any standing armies, and make his entire military to be citizen militia based. He would've viewed Kennedy's creation of counter-insurgency based military units to be absolutely abhorent, but I doubt even Jefferson's biggest fan would advocate getting rid of the NAVY SEALs. Alexander Hamilton thought religion was a plague, and Jefferson frequently indicated he'd seek to eradicate it altogether (through education - not genocide, so we're clear). Taking these rather extreme viewpoints into account, I don't really see how anyone really can make some broad brush statement about anything to do with the Constitution.
