Your favorite judges made up all that other stuff on the fly, out of thin air and the aforementioned argument from ignorance, strategically applied for political ends (especially by CJ Chase). SCOTUS had no text to work with, and neither do you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Implied powers is a concept that every court has agreed to at one time or another, from the Marshall court down to the Rehnquist court. And the fact that you disagree with Chase's findings, or any other justice's findings, is meaningless and doesn't invalidate a court decision.
The grant of the power you desire to account for was never given. Ergo, it remained, untarnished and unalloyed, with the People of the States.
By implication it was.
I believe that Secession is an implied power reserved to the STATES.
You seem to be particularly dense when it comes time to understand inconvenient parts of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant power to States, it grants them from States, to the federal government. Fallacy of wrong direction.
That the requirement of Congressional approval for secession is an implied power reserved to the United States.
Implication is a Hamiltonian gimmick that says, I'm going to do everything I want to that you can't prove is prohibited by the Constitution. It is the opposite of the true spirit of the Constitution, which is that of strict construction. Jay and Marshall's discoveries of "implied powers" were exercises in legal positivism, which is juridical fraud.
Just because Hamilton did a good job of BS'ing people doesn't mean he won the argument. The dicta Jay and Marshall handed down from the bench were wilfully concocted in error, in an attempt to snatch back the historical compromises the Federalists had made with the Antifederalists to secure ratification of the Constitution -- compromises like the Tenth Amendment.
Marshall and Jay need to be dug up, redecided, and plowed back under. Strict-construction, American as opposed to half-British Imperial judges, will eventually get around to that large and momentous work.
Just because the Federalists won a few elections doesn't mean they get to welsh on the Constitution and rewrite it in the middle of the night with Squealer's little paint-pot from Animal Farm.
As to your vaporing about all these "living-Constitution" "implied powers" -- "Implied", my foot. Silence is silence.
There is no federal power to prevent a State so determined to secede from the Union.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Implied powers is a concept that every court has agreed to at one time or another, from the Marshall court down to the Rehnquist court.
Like I said, time to jerk up Marshall by the roots, and bring "implied powers" back to the understanding of grants of power that Marshall himself had during Virginia's ratification debate. (Consider it quoted, again.)
And the fact that you disagree with Chase's findings, or any other justice's findings, is meaningless and doesn't invalidate a court decision.
"I win" isn't an argument. If a justice smokestacks a decision, like Owen Roberts did in voting for the constitutionality of FDR's Social Security Act, are you prepared to stand by his corrupt, interested, or politically logrolling decision? How about Plessey? You willing to stand pat on Plessey vs. Ferguson?
The first duty of the Court is to get it right, not to Get It Right for Our Side. But the latter is what Marshall and Jay were doing, and Chase after them.
[You, quoting me] The grant of the power you desire to account for was never given. Ergo, it remained, untarnished and unalloyed, with the People of the States.
[You] By implication it was.
No way. We aren't talking about some collateral duty of the President or an executive department here. We're talking about all the marbles. If it isn't on paper, you don't get the power.