It hasn't got anything to do with libertarianism; it has to do with simply reading the text. Your position, it seems, is that the text grants a limitless power to do everything in the general welfare, but doesn't really mean it. Some things are outside the federal sphere in spite of the lack of textual support for the exception.
If I'm wrong, then prove it. Assume, for the sake of discussion on this particular point, that you're right about the "general welfare power". Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or, not because I'm "bi-polar", but because the wording of the text forces it on us.
You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.
It seems you have a short memory, so I'll repeat what I said about interpreting phrases rather than sentences: you can't do it. "General welfare", in isolation, means exactly nothing as far as legal obligation is concerned. You seem to think the mere appearance of the phrase, the disconnected words, implies some obvious legal implication regardless of whether it says, "Congress shall have all power to legislate in the general welfare," or "Congress shall not have the power to do anything in the general welfare." As it happens, the Constitution says neither. You're the one looking at things in black and white here.
The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.
Where are those limits in the text?
In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.
I've already said exactly what it means. You're trying to take the radical choice above, which is implied by your view of it, and impose it on mine. It doesn't fit. That choice, accepting the "general welfare clause" or accepting the rest of the Constitution, is a result of seeing it as a separate grant of power. If you get past this false view and see it as part of the grant of the power to tax, everything fits together nicely.
The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong.
Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:
Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.
No kidding.
Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?
If government is so limited, why are you complaining? Your own whines and cries against an overbearing government show that your logic about government power being completely restrained is demonstrably false.
Yes, there are a few limits on federal government power. Alcohol, gambling, slavery, and secession come to mind, but there just aren't that many limits.
The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians. Look around you. We've had soldiers' pension plans for almost 2 centuries. We've had a federal Bank since Thomas Jefferson. We've had Social Security since the 1930's, for crying out loud.
You Libertarians run around screaming that these programs aren't Constitutional as if no adult had ever reviewed them in court over the last 200 years, and that just isn't a rational position to hold.
You claim that government is limited, so you show me where. Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs. Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.
Frankly, I don't see it. Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause. FDR got the New Deal, Social Security, the Works Progress Authority, and the confiscation of gold through because of it. Thomas Jefferson got the first federal bank through because of it.
But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.
Well, forgive me if I don't buy that line of nonsense. Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.
You can't do it. You can't do it because you are wrong, and not only are you wrong, but Libertarianism is wrong.
And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.
And if you disagree, then SHOW ME where the courts have EVER backed your radical, disproven views.
You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.