I cannot reconcile the differences or contradiction about actions to provide the common defense and general welfare. I saw a thread on the general welfare item here awhile back. Perhaps the libertarian site has some info.
I continue to believe that restricting the capabilities of potential enemies by not trading essential materials or systems is part of establishing an army, for the reasons I stated earlier.
I am basically a lzy researcher, I am however, familiar with the constitution, but obviously am far from being a scholar.
Yes. The Federalist Papers This link will take you to a Federalist Papers search page where you can look up the words "regulate trade". Or you can just go to #53 and search for "regulate" within the document. There you will find where either Madison or Hamilton says :
"How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulatious of the different States?
and ...
"How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided, without a similar knowledge of many internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other?"
There are many references like that. If you are at all interested in the original intent of the founders, rather than just assuming what makes sense to you must be what they meant, just read them. It is a difficult read (if you are anything like me, you will have to read them over and over again) but well worth it. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton penned these documents in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the common colonist of the time (which makes me mentally inferior to the common colonist of the time). They leave no stone unturned unless the wording in the Constitution is extremely self-evident. Read them, then reread them (then reread them). It's worth it. But fair warning ... the original intent bares little resemblance to interpretation we apply today.
I cannot reconcile the differences or contradiction about actions to provide the common defense and general welfare.
There's no contradiction. All you have to know is, if the federal government was granted the power to provide the "common defense" and "general welfare", 1) there would have been little need to go ahead and enumerate specific powers like the ones listed in Article 1, section 8, and 2) federal powers would be limitLESS because there would be NO imaginable power that wouldn't/couldn't be considered to be for the "general welfare" of the people. Then when you consider Madison's (the father of the Constitution) famous words :
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Federalist No. 45
If the federal government was simply charged with providing for the common defense and general welfare, there powers would not be "few and defined", but rather "numerous and indefinite".
BTW, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Republican. Republicans care about this stuff too ... at least they used to.
Also, I don't consider myself a "constitutional expert", just someone that loves and respects the document, and the men that made this grand experiment possible. It kills me to see the ignorance and disregard, at best, and the utter contempt, at worst, for the supposed "ridged Constitution" that I am a witness to on a daily bases. If there is EVER anything you think I could help you understand, please don't hesitate to contact me (that goes for all who read this). I will always find the time to respond to you (or anyone else) about the subject I love so much.
The response I made to your first question about the interpretation was meant to explain where I get my interpretation of "regulate". I've stated that I think they meant "to make regular or uniform" the laws for commerce between the states and between the states and foreign nations. The Federalist Papers is where I get that interpretation. I can't see how prohibiting commerce with a particular country can be considered "regulating" because then I would have to admit that the Feds have the power to prohibit one state from trading with another state. I don't think the states would have signed on to that power. But if there is even a question about how a power is construed, I agree with what Thomas Jefferson said :
When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
That's why I offered up an Amendment to address the concerns you had about the sale of certain weapons and weapon components to foreign governments.
OK, done now.