Did someone do something to the 10th Amendment while I was away?
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.
Implied powers is a concept recognized by every court and every president from Washington to the current Bush.
There is no federal power to prevent a State so determined to secede from the Union.
There is no Constitutional provision allowing a state to secede unilaterally.
"I win" isn't an argument.
"I disagree" is no arguement, either.
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.
Just because you, the wise and wonderous lentulusgracchus, disagree doesn't mean that they got it wrong.
If it isn't on paper, you don't get the power.
By implication they do.
"Implied powers" is an excuse for killing a million people because somebody did something your friends in New York and Chicago didn't like? Who the hell are you, Sam Giancana?
"Implied powers" certainly doesn't include Lincoln's war, or his use of the war to defy the Courts, arrest Congressmen, judges, and state legislators for their opinions, and suspend both the habeas writ and the Bill of Rights.
Lincoln was a dictator. There is no "implied dictatorship" in the Constitution.
Yes, we understood it.
You don't. Wilfully.
Because it's inconvenient.