I disputed it back in post #122, and you had no response: "That this phrase was a broad grant of power in an otherwise restrictive clause, and in a section listing numerous specific powers that certainly fall within 'general welfare' and are thus redundant under Hamilton's reading, is simply ludicrous."
No nation nor government will allow itself to face destruction if faced with such because there is a claim by some that its constitution would not allow action. The founders believed that there were implicit powers
red herring. That a nation has an implicit power to prevent its destruction in no way supports a broad reading of explicit text.
No constitution can restrict the government it creates to doing less than providing for the general welfare.
Of course it can.
That is what governments are created for in the first place.
False. Our federal government was created to do only those things the signatory states could not do on their own---but providing for the general welfare is well within each state's abilities.
Modern construction would have had "...throughout the United States:..." rather than "...;" had the list following meant that only the points enumerated were what was considered the "general welfare"
It's clear to my that my content-based argument from post #122 trumps your punctuation-based argument.