The ignorant, or willfully dishonest refusal to accept clarity is not evidence of ambiguity. The fact that someone is willing to lie, or to simply be too ignorant of reality to accept that clear reality does not mean there exists any objective ambiguity.
Your interpreation renders every word in Article 2, section 8 to be utterly devoid of any meaning. That violates one of the most ancient canons of legal construction (which most of those involved in the meticulous drafting and wording of the text were familiary with). That, combined with basic rules of GRAMMAR (not to mention the fact that the Federalist Papers, written by the proponents/drafters of the very text in question) make this VERY point.
Now, you can pretend that it is not clear, and that therefore the willful disregard for this clarity by politicians and the courts is thus born out of ambiguity, but it is either deeply ignorant of every rule grammar and statutory contructions, or cynically dishonest.
Furthermore, if all the liberal rulings you love to support really were born out of genuine ambiguity, rather than wilful disregard of the clearly understood historical meaning, we never would have been subjected to the nonesense that was passed off as legal reason of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" which I challenge you to provide any princple of application for which is in any way distinguishable from the personal moral, ethical, and political preferences of the judge (which is the antithesis of what judges are supposed to do).