I'd say its a matter of some debate if Jackson ever changed his views. His exact views in the elections of 1824 and 1828 are difficult to gauge since aside from running on a policy of "change" and combating corruption he had little firm positions. For instance on the tariff he simply desired a "fair tariff", what exactly a fair tariff entails is up for debate. It's during his presidency that his association with state's rights emerges with the Maysville Road veto, however the Maysville road was located in Henry Clay territory making his decision to veto a smart political move. Jackson defenders also point out that he spent more on internal improvements than every other prior president combined. Jackson detractors tend to note that most of this spending was on rivers and ports, less constitutional questionable grounds than non-military roads. Jackson's bank war is certainly the strongest case to be made for Jackson being a strict constructionalist, but political historians of the era often tend to frame Jackson's actions as being concessions to state's rights factions to limit South Carolina's potential allies. I'm not sure I buy that argument, but its certainly one worth discussion and merit. Jackson's zealous use of the veto and appeal to the sovereignty of the people as an end run around politicians are certainly relatively new conceptions (Jefferson had built his party on the "common man" but party events and organization was controlled from the top down) that could be argued require loose interpretations of the Constitution.

Madison is a more complicated case and it's time for some football, I'll try to address him later but this article is a good starting point.