And this is supposed to mean what? You provided passages in which Madison (rightly) expressed concern about mission creep and government overreach, and those concerns are supposed to negate the fact that both the general welfare and the commerce clauses made it into the Constitution anyway? They don't! Those clauses are there, and regardless of libertarian feelings, they form the basis of much of our federal code of law. And yes, I did use a dictionary reference for the meaning of the phrase "general welfare," because without a standard definition of a word, communication is not possible. I also looked for an old reference, because the definition has altered over time to include the dole--and that was never a founding fathers' intent.
Whatever Madison wrote while wrangling over what should and should not be included in the Constitution, I am sure that he eventually came to the realization that there is absolutely no Constitution, no set of laws, no legal means whatsoever to prevent abuse of power. The best we can do is to endeavor to place people of high character in those positions of power, who will do their best to follow the intent of the original Constitution.
You have not made the case that the government has no business protecting American citizens against unscrupulous salesmen or companies. Nor have you made the case that the American people are somehow more free by allowing profiteering companies to sell them dangerous products with impunity.
I don't know about you, but I appreciate the fact that when I go to buy a product, there are regulations in place ensuring that the product is not going to injure or kill me under normal use. I think most people take product safety for granted, and have no idea about the effort it takes behind the scenes to ensure that safety. Thus, when someone writes an opinion piece about the supposed overreach of the government working to establish a set of standards for a new product, a number of people (predictably) start yelling about infringement of our freedoms. I wonder how many of these people would be quiet and uncomplaining if they bought a box of cookies and found them full of rat hairs and sawdust?
We have an authoritative historical reference that tells us explicitly what that clause was understood and intended to mean by the people who wrote and ratified it.
There should not be any reason to go to any other source or go through any process of semantic deconstruction. The only reason to do that is to rationalize attributing some unintended meaning in order to authorize an unintended exercise of power.
Power and control is a bright, shiny thing that's hypnotic and seductive, and makes people do irrational things in pursuit of it.