"Quite the contrary. It's clear that it does no such thing."
Ah, but there's the rub: our Constitution does convey upon the federal government some unenumerated powers.
For instance, the power to tax is granted, but left unenumerated are which taxes and excises can be granted.
The power to pay debts is granted, but which debts to pay (or not - see Southern debts of 1865) are left unenumerated.
Likewise, the power to provide for our common defense is left unenumerated. Otherwise today's national missile defense and air force would be unConstitutional.
So it follows that the power to provide for our "general welfare" is also an unenumerated power because which programs for our general welfare are likewise unenumerated.
RE: the 'general welfare' clause.
You seem to assume that 'welfare' in this context means 'welfare' in the Rooseveltian hand-out sense. I submit that this is an error.
What is now called 'welfare' was once called 'charity', or 'relief'.
The use of 'welfare' in this regard is the consequence of distorting the Constitution for a political purpose. IOW, you've got it back to front. We call it 'welfare' because of the legal fiction.
It is an extraordinary stretch, even a reductio ad absurdum, to claim that the clause in question gives unbounded powers to Congress to enact whatever laws they please, so long as they can be construed as beneficial to some national 'purpose' or 'general welfare'. If one construes the meaning so broadly, then we might as well have NO Constitution, since Congress would be limited only by their powers of rhetoric.
Ah, but there's the rub: our Constitution does convey upon the federal government some unenumerated powers.No, it doesn't. Repeating a false assertion will not make it true, especially since it's already been debunked.
For instance, the power to tax is granted, but left unenumerated are which taxes and excises can be granted. The power to pay debts is granted, but which debts to pay (or not - see Southern debts of 1865) are left unenumerated.
Jumping from a power that can be exercised in one way or another to the particular exercise of that power as a separate power, as if a general power to tax doesn't include the power to impose tarrifs, is rank sophistry. I would be embarrassed to say something that stupid. You seem to have the problem you accuse libertarians of: you want to get in the last word. The problem is that you happen to be wrong, and instead of admitting it with some dignity, you try to drag on a debate which, frankly, I've already won.
Why don't you just admit it doesn't say what you thought it said? Is admitting you were wrong that hard for you?
Likewise, the power to provide for our common defense is left unenumerated. Otherwise today's national missile defense and air force would be unConstitutional.
I already debunked that.
So it follows that the power to provide for our "general welfare" is also an unenumerated power because which programs for our general welfare are likewise unenumerated.
There's no "general welfare power" in the first place, and therefore no choice over how to use that power.
If only there were no such powers, then I might have to agree with you, but that's not the case. The Supreme Court held that slavery was not encroached upon by the general welfare clause due to states rights in Dred Scott. Likewise, it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol over state opposition. Of course, gambling was also ruled to be unencroached by the general welfare clause. The Tenth Amendment clearly conveyed the right to secede to states, as well, so one would be hard-pressed to claim that the "general welfare" clause conveyed UNLIMITED power to the federal government. But one can easily see that the general welfare clause conveys some power, contrary to your views...
Let's be honest: you're making a fool of yourself.
If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. To say that Congress has the power to do what it thinks is in the general power, but not the power to do a particular thing which it thinks is the general welfare (and not even the ones listed in the Bill of Rights, but ones that have been ruled to be state matters) is simply a contradiction. It doesn't say lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, except as it pertains to slavery, alcohol, gambling, ect. If a "general welfare power" is granted by the strange and awkward construction (if it's intended for that purpose, that is), "lay and collect taxes... to provide for the general welfare", it's the whole thing; general welfare stands without immediate qualification. If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing. As you yourself have proven, it does not grant everything.