SS, Medicare, EPA, FDA, corporate abuses, and you get the same sort of algorithmic answer you gave...can't do it sorry.
I didn't give you an algorithmic answer of no. Re-read my post, or at least don't put words in my mouth. I wrote that you could justify the EPA and FDA, and that some libertarians would be okay with a universal basic income.
Trying to pretend that there is one and only one originalist interpretation of the Constitution is simply not realistic IMO. There have been massive changes in the way this country works compared to 1787. Our economy, healthcare requirements, educational requirements, family structures, mobility etc, look nothing like the 18th century.
By this logic, why even have the Constitution? To you, it is a meaningless document because you choose to deliberately misinterpret the specific powers that it gives the federal government. It's not "originalist" to understand what the language of the Constitution means, especially in the case of the general welfare clause because the meaning of it is documented and explicit by the authors of the Constitution.
Let's think back to 1918. People wanted to ban alcohol. Alcohol is certainly a nasty substance, and it would definitely "promote the general welfare" to ban it. Yet the government didn't pass legislation banning it - instead, they did the Constitutionally correct thing: they passed an amendment. This is the process that the Constitution describes for modifying itself.
If you want the government to be able to do anything that you want it to, despite it being unconstitutional, you have a way to legally allow it to do so: amendments. If you don't want to go that route, then throw out the Constitution. Don't pretend that it holds any legal value if you decide that some parts of it are fine but others are not.
States are fully capable of letting their citizens down also. Just look at what's happening Flint right this minute. The EPA warned them of their lead problem and zero action was taken to correct the problem. That town's a disaster now. It's just as easy for corporate dollars to corrupt state legislatures. It might even be easier.
No one is saying that states aren't broken either. But at least they are closer to the people, and at least its Constitutional for states to pass whatever laws they want so long as it does not conflict with federal laws.
I'm also seriously concerned about civil rights. Those guys lost me by suggesting that things like the CRA of '64 was wrong and counter productive. I keep hearing things like If the state you're living in doesn't look out for your rights move to a nicer one. Note that you don't hear poor people suggesting this. It's wealthy mostly white, straight politicians. That kind of mobility just isn't feasible for poorer folks. I find it hard to believe that the founder's ideal constitution was X number of little abusive fiefdoms, despite their compromises on slavery just to get the thing ratified.
I'll admit that civil rights are one problem with the federalist system. Again, though, amendments are the answer.
Of course, one might respond that amendments aren't feasible to pass anymore because of the size and divisiveness of the country. If that's case, how can one also have the expectation that the federal government would be effective at responding to the needs of all of its citizens and be able to run a successful healthcare system? If we can't even change the constitution anymore because we're so divided, how can we expect that 435 representatives and 50 senators could possibly be effective at legislating 350 million people?