Thanks for the English language lesson!

First, I can see and distinguish between providing for the common defense from providing for the general welfare. They share a common foundation in that they are focused on the United States as a whole and not the individuals who make up the United States per se. However, I do have a question on the term welfare.

Welfare as described in the 1828 dictionary states:

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

What intrigues me is the first meaning where exemption from sickness is acknowledged. Of course, calamity could be assumed to include sickness as well.

My point is if, by this definition of welfare from a period in time near to when the Constitution was written, is acceptable for the meaning and intent in the Constitution, then I could see where it would be possible to successfully argue the intent of the framers was to allow future Congress's to enter into the area of general welfare so long as they make their intrusion universal, to all citizens, while at the same time giving respect to the Tenth Amendment by consulting with all States so as to keep the power of the Federal government in check, similar to the check and balances in Congress.

Frankly, I find the founders to be quite adept at the use and intent of language. And the way in which they weaved the Constitution makes me think real hard not only about what they are saying, but take in context the wording used before and after keywords. That makes it a document opened to interpretation if one is able to grasp the essence of what the original intent was - it's a maze of knowledge.