It wouldn't even take that word to make the quotes fit the intended use. The Fed doesn't have any schools or school buildings or (underage) students. In fact, I'm not even sure any state has that and I know Missouri doesn't, so your continued misunderstanding is once again noted.
As usual, your translating abilities are rather lacking.
Hamilton expressly states that Congress can appropriate money for the general welfare - period, end of story - and was not intended to be limited by the following clauses. If you had actually read the entire quote that would be plain as day. He is also saying that other actions (more than just spending money) promoting the general welfare is not part of the powers of Congress under that clause, which is what the last paragraph says. Giving schools federal money for education is an appropriation of money for the general welfare as provided in Article 8, Clause 1, plain and simple. Spending money for R&D and other aspects of education is also allowed, which is why there was HEW, which was later split into Dept of Education and Dept of Health and Human Services.
the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress, how many times must i say this.......and one thing i do not believe you will understand is...the founders created a nation where the federal government would not be in the personal life's of the people.
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 States;
black text is a power of congress, while
red text is a duty of congress.
as for the translation, lets here from someone else on the subject.
Alexander Hamilton had a slightly more liberal view of the term general welfare. He has stated in several occasions that the general welfare clause in the taxing clause of the Constitution gives the government authority over almost anything defined as the general welfare. The argument he seems to make is that the general welfare clause gives the government unquestionable ability to do what it wants as long as it is in the general welfare, good for everyone. The problem is that he is the only Founder to seem to have that view. Madison, Jefferson, and the whole of the Federalists Papers disagree with him. He even disagrees with himself sometimes as he was the author of many Federalist Papers as well as with this quote:
"The only qualification of the generality of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot"
"No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication"
It appears from this quote even Alexander Hamilton was arguing that the general welfare phrase only applies to the powers authorize to Congress in the Constitution. Again we see the founders had a clear view of this phrase even when they seem to contradict themselves.
Secondly what did the Federalists Papers say about the term general welfare? These documents written to defend the Constitution from the detractors in the states also do a good job of explaining the intent of this term.
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41)
http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/original-meaning-of-the-general-welfare/
