In the US Constitution, the Tax clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 is:
The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
After the Constitution was ratified, Alexander Hamilton pushed for a broader reading of this clause, transmuting it to the General Welfare clause to greatly expand the authorities of the Federal Government.
By significance, consider official efforts to either advance legislation by representatives/senators or movement by Federal Government officials. Ignore campaign speeches, and promises from the punditry. Unless there is a decision form the Supreme Court that reverses the adoption of the Hamiltonian interpretation that I haven't found yet, I expect an answer to this question would involve a member, or group of members, of Congress
An Example The want for a repudiation of this reading is intentional. While there may be measures that have constrained it, this question is looking for a reversal of the Hamiltonian reading, shifting back to the Madisonian intentions. As an example, consider the response to the decision in Kelo V. New London. When the court decided it was within the governments authority to take property and give it do a third party, specifically a private enterprise, under the guise that the increase in the tax base was considered a public use, Senator John Cornyn of Texas put forth legislation to constrain the use of Eminent Domain for economic Development (it didn't pass). Similarily, the decision resulted in a number of states taking similar actions to prevent the same. This was a repudiation of the Supreme Courts ruling.