Well they still argue it's about copyright rather than promoting science and the arts.
That particular clause is, but he originally dared us to "show us where science is mentioned in the constitution". It is, so I did.
His whole philosophy is built on sand. The military spending clause coupled with the general welfare clause in the beginning of Article 1 Sec.8 pretty much give Congress a huge universe to spend our cash, and the courts in over 200 years have never held otherwise. It was intended to be that way.
The Founders intention was to have a system where a nutty, mob driven House passed willy-nilly spending bills that would bankrupt the government, like all of them have done in every democracy since Rome, but Jefferson and Co intended for the Senate to then wisely pull out the really ridiculous crap, and for the President to veto anything else. I'm sure we can all say it hasn't worked out 100% as intended, but it works exactly that way a lot of times.
But the idea that Congress is somehow constitutionally limited in how it spends money is ridiculous, the beginning and end of Article 1 sec 8 give it such sweeping spending powers and such broad definitions, they can fund whatever they wish, as long as it either supports the military or supports the general welfare. Public Health has been considered a part of that since the founding of the Republic - read the section above about the history of the NIH, the supposedly wasteful government, unconstitutional agency according to The Glenn Beck Chorus here a BWOT, in fact started in the 1780's for christ sake, to protect the public health. The idea any kind of support for science that furthers public health is "unconstitutional" is just plain stupid, it's been done starting when the men who began this country were running it.