There is no such concept, the common defense included all military force. I realize you think stringing words together makes you sound like you are a deep thinker, but it just indicates how utterly devoid your basic understanding of history and the Constitution is.

I challenge you to find the words "common offense" anywhere in any of the founding documents, or contemporary discussions thereof. Enough of your frivolous psuedointellectual nonesense.

Your position is that of the Anti-Federalists, they claimed that the general welfare clause was a general grant of power, just as you do. Madison was emphatic in striking down their argument. That was the entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, to challenge the attacks of the Anti-Federalists. So "absurd" was the anti-federalist interpretation of the proposed Constitution's general welfare clause as granting a general power, Madison even questioned the genuinous of the misconstruction, suggesting that it was actually a knowingly dishonest construction (which would be YOUR position) being put forth by the opponents of the Constitution to impede its ratification.

I reach that conclusion because that was the common understanding of the Articles of Confederation, that there was no broad general power to promote the general welfare, the Articles were largely viewed as toothless and inadequate.

The proposed Constitution on the other hand provided strong but LIMITED powers to the Federal Government.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane