[GovernmentShrinker]

"General welfare" needs to be interpreted as things which are of obvious benefit to substantially everyone in the United States. Things which are of benefit only to specific groups or individuals have nothing to do with the "general welfare". Thus all government wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional. But our defense capabilities pass the test, as we all benefit from not having our nation invaded and taken over by Communist dictators or Islamic terrorists.

[ClearCase_guy]

"General welfare" needs to be interpreted as things which are of obvious benefit to substantially everyone in the United States.

I would disagree. I'm no expert, but I think what you describe is something that benefits "the people". It seems to me that the Founders were very clear on this -- when they meant the people, they used the phrase "the people".

Article I, Section 8 refers to the general welfare of "the United States" which I take as a reference to the federal union of the several states. It's a national government body which has a defined role with limited powers. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was not self-supporting and quickly ran into trouble. I think the general welfare concept here is aimed at making sure that the federal union is stable and supported. Not a terribly difficult task -- one which can be done some relatively small money.

Providing charity to "the people" is very much outside the scope of "the general welfare of the United States".