I learned something interesting about the "State's rights" arguments the Right loves.

[alc]

4. there are many interpretations

Even in the 1790s. Hamilton's interpretation was that the general welfare clause gave the federal government the right to do anything as long as they could justify it. Enumerated powers and 10th amendment were irrelevant since the general welfare clause took precedence. His private journal at the time they wrote the federalist papers disagreed with what Madison wrote about limits of federal government. Hamilton avoided writing about limits to federal government himself but knew it was needed to get the votes so was happy to have Madison do it.

Madison felt that the enumerated powers were the limit of federal government. The states got ALL other powers, even ones not yet conceived. An amendment would be needed if the federal government was to get a new power enumerated.

Hamilton and Madison both had supporters. And just about everyone's attitude changed according to specific issues (they'd gladly use the interpretation that supported their side just like today)

We're still having the same arguments, with someone's "hogwash" being someone else's "abuse of power". I think that's a good thing. We need to be able to move forward without an amendment for every new power. But we need lots of debate any time the government is given more power.