I don’t read that to be welfare as we define it today. It was for welfare of the GOV and items defined the constitution. There are quotes by many more founding fathers that contradict your example.
That statement also could be read that if amended properly was not meant to restrict spending or monies as it would only be logical there might be amendments in the future. His statement does not show his view on amendments to authorize the spending which should be the baseline view point when adding power to the Constitution.[/quote]
With all due respect, it doesn’t matter how you or I read it. Nor does it matter that other authors and signatories interpreted it differently than Hamilton. The courts (including the current court) get to interpret it. And they’ve come down firmly on the side of congressional power. No amount of wishing will change that. Nor will the single election of a different president.
The supreme court is much like Humpty Dumpty:
‘And only one [day] for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
