<<BTW, Hamilton was also opposed to the Bill of Rights. His view was that it was not needed, since Congress could only do those things it was authorized to do (such as that list in Section
. That is the reason for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.>>
Well, he was also opposed to slavery. Books have been written about him, he was a brilliant and complex man. He may have been wrong on the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.
A literal reading of section 8 does find a Congressional power to act for the general welfare, not taken away by specific examples of that power: Use my home as you would your own, raid the refrigerator at will. Does that mean you can't watch the TV in the family room? It's ridiculous to contend that the general application of the first power is taken away by the specificity of the second? The court that you refer to as "liberal" in its interpretation of the section was actually "strict constructionist" in that one case. It would take some tampering with the actual wording of the Constitution to find express limitation of the "general welfare" in the examples that follow it.
Besides which, the Constitution as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.
does provide, whether you agree with the "liberal" Depression-era court or not, that the power to act for the general welfare of the nation is NOT limited by the examples given. (And BTW, if that court was so "liberal," how come FDR wanted to "pack" it by increasing its members to 14?)
So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research. That's just one more right-wing myth.