Looking at the thread I don't think he objects to government ensuring clean water, but Democrats' taxing policies.

Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other.

And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.

The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers). You might as well be pointing to the NYT Opinion section as your source.

You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.

> Further still I am strict orginalist. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.

Strict originalist, you say?

So, regarding the second amendment, what class of weapons do you consider "Arms"? Weapons from 1776? 1787, when a majority of delegates signed? 1778, when it was ratified? 1779, when it was the law?

And, these weapons were common arms for the Rev war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_th... . Any arguments saying later on weapons would just be a non-originalist interpretation of the constitution.

The Federalist papers literally argued against what became of Bill of Rights.

> The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.[citation needed]

Yet we have a bill of rights!

Yeah you can absolutely use the papers to get context about what their authors were thinking. However, as I've shown with just one of many examples, you should not use the papers to claim that all the founding fathers think that way.

Even one of the other Federalists, Hamilton, disagreed with your interpretation.

> Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists took a broader view. Hamilton famously argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” While Hamilton did not advocate a completely unbounded interpretation of “general welfare,” under which Congress could spend money for virtually any object it considers beneficial, he and the Federalists did believe that the Clause authorized a wide range of spending for purposes that go beyond Congress’s other enumerated powers, so long as they were sufficiently “general.”

> The debate between the Madisonian and Hamiltonian views continued throughout much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a general rule, Democratic presidents and members of Congress tended to adopt positions similar to Madison’s, or slightly broader. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, James Monroe, James Polk, James Buchanan, and Grover Cleveland all opposed bills authorizing spending on local infrastructure and disaster relief projects, citing constitutional objections. By contrast, the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Republicans tended to take a broader view of congressional power, closer to Hamilton’s position. Whig leader Henry Clay, for example, argued that the Clause authorized his proposal for a wide-ranging “American System” of canal and roadbuilding.

You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong, since even back then people like Hamilton disagreed with Madison. That's why using Madison as your only guide for interpreting the constitution is, well, not really a great argument at all.

>You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong,

Not even in the slightest, you clearly do not understand the position of Hamilton if you believe his statements mean " clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare" which is the original comment I responded to.

All of those things would be spending *Local* not *General* Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive sure but he was still in the realm of things that applied to all States equally, not sending money to particular cities / states that need "clean water" or to individuals that need food assistance, etc.

>Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive

So you acknowledge that your original statement was wrong, and that the general welfare statement even at that time was considered more expansive by some of the founding fathers than the Federalist paper you quoted argued?

To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).

This is so profoundly ignorant that I am surprised it continues to come up.

Under your premise you would have wanted all Slaves to be counted as whole persons. This is exactly what many slave owners wanted, they wanted to have the slaves counted as whole persons so their states would have more power.

The Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted at all

3/5ths was a compromise and directly lead to the eventual abolishment of slavery completely.