No, you're making no sense at all I'm afraid.
I used a thing called "paraphrasing" when I made the post in question. You decided that "explicitly" isn't exact wording, so it wasn't legit. Neither is "exempting".
Then you went on and talked about "implied powers"
Hmmmm... "implied" you say? As in... not directly stated?
And your problem was with the word "explicitly" and yet neither "explicit" (no forms of the word) nor "exempting" were used in the Constitution.
You see, what I did was "paraphrase." That means I put the words into my own, for my own understanding and clarification.
If you would like to dispute my translation, by all means. But simply stating "explicitly isn't used" is NOT a valid point, nor is it on topic. Thus the crack abou "Non-sequiter" being more than just a name.