The purpose of the constitution is to allow for things that the FDA does, among many other things, in providing for the general welfare.
NO.
There are NO SWEEPING powers delegated to the feds by the Constitution. ONLY LIMITED, ENUMERATED powers delegated to the feds by the Constitution.
If you don’t get that, then you’re unwittingly siding with the Leftist tyrants and “liberal theorists” who twist the original understanding and intent of the actual writing of the Constitution to create a totalitarian government - something the Constitution was NEVER intended to do.
If your city enacted a law that said running a red light is illegal, someone might say, Oh, well, since the accused didn’t SEE the red light, then she didn’t break the law when she ran the red light because she didn’t know it was a red light. But was that the intent of the law? You have to review the records of the city council leading up to passage of the law and when you do, you find that in the discussion about passing the law, you find the city council determined that running a red light was illegal regardless of whether the driver actually saw the red light or not. So the original intent of the law is what matters.
Same with the Constitution. You can’t insert your own interpretation. You have to look at what is actually written (purpose is NOT an enumerated power) and originally understood and intended (the clear intent of the founders who just risked their lives against a totalitarian government) to SPECIFICALLY limit the powers of the central government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are mandatory authority, clearly state this. Further proof from source documents, persuasive authority, are the Federalist Papers and Anti-federalist Papers which clearly spell this out.
If you really care about integrity and how to accurately understand the Constitution, its presumptions and intentions, read, “The Tempting of America”, by Robert Bork, the leading Constitutional scholar of his time and maybe all time. Robert Bork had more constitutional integrity in his little finger than most of these “liberal theorist” and “positive law” professors combined.