Full disclosure: I write as a political liberal and am attempting to comment on the discussion of "welfare" in the Constitution in general rather than any on any specific argument...

Another site, "Yahoo answers" billed as the Best Answer - Chosen by Voters, to the question at hand was the following:

"Promoting the general welfare" is just a fancy way of saying that we will do things like increase public safety, improve health, and progress the country. "Promoting the general welfare" = "Taking care of every citizen"

Doesn't this suggest that the Constitution is viewed by each of us in a different way, based on our own study, prejudices, etc. The government already provides health insurance to millions, and a new program to cover everyone is not a major change, given Social Security, Medicare, the VA, highway system, Food Stamps, etc. Has anyone challenged these programs based on your interpretation of the Constitution? What have the courts held?... it seems that the Constitution, for better or worse, means what the Supremes say it means, according to 200 years of jurisprudence. Even if this interpretation is wrong and much of what I read in this discussion is correct, dont you think that if, say, Medicare were deemed unconstitutional, there would be an amendment to make it so within a year. These programs are successful and popular, and if we have a national character, it's pragmatism.