So, you're saying that Madison didn't approve of the debating and passage of laws by Congress and the signing of them by the President?
:>)
No, I'm saying he attached essentially no specific meaning to the "general welfare" clause, either one of them.
Rather, they are a general sort of statement, designed to illustrate the conceptual necessity of even having a federal government.
Taken in and of itself, the clause has been twisted to mean that social security, medicare, welfare, public schools, foreign aid to Africa... are all Constitutional.
My question is simple. Where do we draw the line between disaster relief for hurricane victims in Louisiana and sending cash to Africa so war lords can continue to enslave the people?
Since neither are specifically in the Constitution, the entire argument becomes morally relativistic, something I thought conservatives argued against when leftists advance such policies...