Using that argument to support unconstitutional acts is what conservatives usually call "results based" thinking. Usually conservatives are against that, except when they're for it. In other words, they are no different than Justice Breyer, except that they differ on WHEN and WHY to violate the Constitution.
For crying out loud, use your brain instead of resorting to casting aspersions on my "conservative credentials".
At the time the Constitution was written, we had nowhere near the population we have now, nor the infastructure in place to be able to help much in the event of a natural disaster in some farflung (relatively speaking) corner of the Republic.
Now, we have -what- 300,000,000 people in this country, vastly improved health services and knowlege of epidemiology that we didn't have then. That's just for starters. We have the knowledge, the infastructure, and the WILL to do what we can to help our fellow citizens in a time of serious need.
Your literalistic reading of the Consititution in this instance leaves me cold. Stop using the Consititution to cover up your resentment at being forced to help those you would otherwise throw to the wolves.