At no points have the courts ever taken anywhere near as broad an interpretation of the welfare clause as you're suggesting it to be. And such a broad interpretation would be incongruous with the views of its primary authors (Jefferson and Hamilton).
The framers would more likely to suggest that we NEED a revolution over the expansion of the federal government beyond their limited enumerated powers. They'd also certainly disagree with income taxes as well.
I would love to see what they would think of the last 250 years of history. I think it's naive to suggest that they wouldn't have anything to learn. They were writing in one world, and people have found many new ways to abuse their countrymen since then.
The framers would more likely to suggest that we NEED a revolution over the expansion of the federal government beyond their limited enumerated powers. They'd also certainly disagree with income taxes as well.