The Foundrs expected Constitutional debate to center around the meaning of the 'necessary and proper' clause. Unfortunately, people like Snowe skip that, and warp the 'commerce' and 'general welfare' clauses.
Errr.. Not exactly.
First off, I find it generally presumptuous to know what the Founders had in mind, and I do admit I am of the school of thought that now entering 222 years after it was written, some liberties can be taken to ensure it's relevance.
(The debate there really focuses on some, and where should we stop, etc. etc. etc.)
But. The general drift of the federal government (I've heard 1933-now, but some say 1914-now) is generally to expand it's powers by a) the two clauses you mention, but much more often b) carrot and stick approaches
(i.e they give you money if you follow them, and give you no money (And in fact, no may mean much less) if you don't.)
This is why taxation (and restricting it) is a bit of a sticking point for Republicans and Libertarians, who mostly correctly guess that with less money, the government cannot function as is and must return some control and functions to the states (Devolving).
So by that respect you may be right - except that the Republicans also tend to expand hugely the police powers and moral legislation abilities of the state and the Democrats play along (.. aren't exactly very good at that reducing government intervention into the bedroom.)
And on the other hand, something like this would never really happen in the states and is 'right' to be passed (see the recent gay marriage bans, which pass in almost every state it's put to a vote. Maine and Washington are deciding this year to follow or not. For a successful issue: See civil rights.)
Generally speaking, simplifying the debate to 'federal government attempting to push issue bad' ignores a lot of factors that make things more complex when attempting to pass through states (think of 50 different versions of medicare, for example) or less desirable.
