I suggest beginning with The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph J. Ellis. The work focuses on the Constitutional Convention, specifically George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton--the quartet. The sections specifically about Madison provide insight into your question; yes, Madison specifically regarded the Constitution with it's "ambiguities" as a "living" document where clear answers were not offered, but instead provided a space where arguments about issues could continue. "The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution..the foundation for an ever-shifting political dialogue that, like history itself, was an argument without end." Ellis argues that Madison's, ergo the Constitution's, original intent was to make all original intentions, e.g. the Constitution as it was when written, negotiable in the future.^(1)

Ellis' descriptions of the Constitutional Convention and the debates during, preceding, and after epitomize the spirit of argumentation and negotiation. "Even outright nationalists like Madison, Washington, and Hamilton recognized that they were arguing for a political framework that would consolidate the states into a union in which a truly national sense of allegiance would develop gradually over time." The national government was considered a "nation-in-the-making" where Ellis emphasizes the making aspect. The Constitutional Convention, and consequently the Constitution itself comprised the "making," or the argumentation and negotiation.^(2)

I would also look at the Constitution itself, as the process of amending embodies the environment of argumentation and negotiation. Beyond the scope of the early American Republic, read Eric Foner's The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution as it outlines the Constitutional debates during Reconstruction and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and again, the "argument without end."

Also go to JSTOR, there are numerous academic journal articles which cover this topic as well. Usually my search includes James Madison and Constitution. Hope this helps!

Sources:

^(1)The Quartet, 172.

^(2)The Quartet, 140.

Thomas Jefferson was explicitly in favor of viewing the constitution not only as a living document but as one with an expiration date. In a letter to James Madison he wrote (emphasis mine):

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

You can read the full letter here