“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare...the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body.”
Really? Does it come down to a matter of reading comprehension?
Try again.
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. James Madison