Did our Founders intend

[buzzroller]

the party most willing to harm United States citizens to have the upper hand in legislative negotiations?
I believe they never anticipated any members of Congress to be that craven, because if they had, they would have written a default mechanism into the Constitution.

[leftstreet]

1. The Constitution didn't set up the 'two parties' thing

There's no mechanism endorsing parties of any kind

[99th_Monkey]

2. Your point is well taken

whether or not the constitution calls for 2 parties.

it is difficult indeed to imagine our founders being very happy with
the Teabaggers seditious antics right now.

[Vox Moi]

3. George Washington saw a danger in political parties

Excerpt from his farewell address wherein 'combinations and associations' includes political parties:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[Igel]

4. Not in terms of parties.

But they certainly saw the possibility of having a minority force the majority to do something in order to gain assent.

Look at the bill of rights. Look at the 2/3 compromise. It would have been all well and good to say, "No, I'm not going to let a minority say what a majority--or those who should be a majority--want to do. Given my principles or the country, I side with my principles." Even the Articles of Confederation was a failed attempt because there was no consensus and a way forward was needed.

Yes, it can create problems, many of which may have a messy resolution later, a sort of playing kick the can. However, this can get us through a crisis at hand and allow for a resolution later.

This kind of thing should only occur, however, in a situation where there really is an all-or-nothing situation. And even then, that 2/3 compromise split the difference: It took an all-or-nothing situation and made it into a "let's find a middle way", however problematic it was.

[1-Old-Man]

5. Its good to remember is that there were about 4 dozen Founding Fathers, all had different intentions

The "founding fathers' did not speak with one voice, there were about 50* of them and between them they had about 52 different ideas about how the country should operate. It is a gross mistake to say that they intended this or intended that.

* 50 or so counting all the signers of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, of which I believe there were about two dozen who signed both documents.