[ QUOTE ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm
The opinion of the founders who wrote the Constitution would disagree with the democrats. Go to that link and read some quotes from Madison regarding the general welfare clause. I think you'll find the similiar quotes from Madison regarding the interstate commerce clause. I'm not sure on this, but I think these two clauses started being severely abused and interpreted differently during FDR's new deal. He threatened to increase the number of supreme court justices to 15, and the court didn't want to lose power so one of the justices, Owen Daniels, switched his interpretation of the commerce clause.
The commerce clause was put in just to make sure that there was free trade among the several states. The founders never intended for the federal government to use it to take so much power from the states. They used it as an excuse to start the war on drugs, the Real ID Act, the UIGEA, etc. U.S. v. Lopez did limit what Congress could do under the commerce clause though, and thank god it did because otherwise they'd be able to regulate anything and everything, even non-economic issues. There are so many things today that would violate these two clauses if we went by what the writers of the Constitution intended. If they had meant these two clauses to give Congress broad powers, then why did they specify exactly what Congress could do in the Constitution?
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I posted this already, guess I just thought it in my head. Anyways, thanks for posting that, great link, and while I don't consider Madison to be a great example of someone who's opinion we should value, it still points out the thinking behind the clause.