The Constitution gives congress the the power of social welfare

My oppoent has confined all his responses to my enumerated poinfs from the last round, so I will continue to do so as well.1. No restriction citedFor two rounds now my opponent has failed to name any provision of the constitution that specifically prohibits SW spending. Now, he purports to reserve the right to do so. Is he planning a surprise argument perhaps? Clearly this argument has been waved.2. GW clause grants plenary spending powerI have not dropped my opponent's argument about this clause being a qualificaion on the power to grant revenue. Rather I have thouroughly refuted, his proposterous reading. My opponent would have us believe that the founders intended Congress to have the powers of taxation but no power to spend (despite clearly saying they did). He merely rehashed his original argument for this point in this round, so I won't refute it the same way again, but I extend my arguments from last round. Let's look at a less politically charged example. Consider the following:I ride my bike to go to work -- Clearly the speaker both rides his bike and goes to work.I have the power to ride my bike, to go to work. -- Again, clearly the speaker has both the power to ride his bike and the power to go to work. If you didn't otherwise know that he had the power to go to work, you do now.I have the power to ride my bike, to go wherever I please. -- Like above the speaker has the power to go wherever he pleases, unless a particular prohibition is stated elsewhere.The one other point I would add on this topic is regarding my opponent's attempt to distinguish common defense and general welfare, in that there are additional defense related powers granted in Art. I sec. 8. This is because there is more involved in creating an army than just spending (unless you use mercenaries of course). Congress needed to have the authority of conscription, to construct its own armories, to pass laws governing the military like the UCMJ. These did require a separate grant of Congressional power, whereas pure spending to promote common defense or general welfare did not.3. The founders agreed the spending clause was broadMy opponent seems to think that by quoting more of my source it somehow changes the meaning. I encourage the reader to read his quotation again. Quite clearly Hamilton is arguing for the ability of congress to spend on whatever it wants. He even says of the question whether it has such power, "There is certainly no good foundation for such a question."My opponent concedes that I have named acts of the first congress that spent on things not explicitly granted in the Constitution when he says:"My opponent has cited several acts of congress that does not redistribute wealth, as in the agreed upon definition of social welfare."His qualification is correct; these acts are not intended to "redistribute wealth." Now he is the one confusing SW with GW. My point was not that congress has the power to redistribute wealth, it was that congress has the power to spend on anything it wants, unless prohibited elsewhere in the constitution. The phrase "redistribute wealth" appears nowhere in the constitution.My opponent's claims that lighthouses and pensions for widows of a war that happened before the federal government was created are related to common defense (and thus somehow, again "common defense" matters in the clause while GW doesn't) is clearly baseless. By that logic, having a well fed population means better soldiers, so SW spending on nutrition (aka, food stamps) is related to common defense.4. NH ConstitutionMy opponent completely abandoned this point and renumbered the others to obfuscate this fact. I extend my arguments under this heading.5. Capitalization and punctuation"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United"Note that all and only the nouns are capitalized. My opponent continues his argument that the capitalization of words means they are emphasized (rather than just being nouns). He then further claims that this has some legal meaning. His source clearly refutes this argument. To quote his reference 3 from the last round:"One of the persistant myths among political dissidents is that such usages and initial or complete capitalization of names indicates different legal entities or a different legal status for the entity... They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders. Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever."I agree with his source completely.My opponent's rehashing of his argument about commas that I already refuted is fully dealt with by my example under point 1.6. Burden of proof and summaryFinally, my opponent concludes by saying:"You have yet to prove that the term “general Welfare” is not a qualification of the appropriation of taxes. You also have yet to site [sic] where in the constitution it grants them a specific power of social welfare."First, let me point out, that my opponent has the burden of proof since he advocates the change from the status quo. His formulation of the topic as "Congress has the power..." rather than "Federal Social Welfare programs are unconstitutional..." notwithstanding.On my opponent's first point, I agree completely that the GW is a qualification of the appropriation of taxes. It qualifies congress (by his definition of GW) to spend to promote the general health, happiness, and fortunes of the people of the United States. Somehow my opponent doesn't appreciate that this is an incredibly broad grant.I also agree that I have not named a location where Congress is given "a specific power of social welfare." Instead I have given a location where congress is given the power to spend on anything it wants. Congress does not have a broader power to enact social welfare regulations, only to spend. Congress, pursuant to limited government principes, does not have the power to pass a law mandating that people eat broccoli. It does, however, have the power to say, here's some money if you want to eat broccoli.