Justice Ginsburg you should be asking but Chief Justice Marshall:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that every thing granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly,” and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people;” thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of the legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation."
Justice Marshall in 1819 was a far cry from the Justice Marshal of the Virginia debates, where he opined that the states retained all powers not delegated, and could resume those powers.
But Justice Ginsberg Marshall writes, 'Why else were some of the limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced?' Duh, to LIMIT federal powers. Then he REVERSES the meaning of Amendment X, which reserves ALL powers not delegated nor prohibited to the states, to reserve all powers not EXPRESSLY delegated.
You have to remember, Chief Justice John Marshall is the hero to Wlat, the worshipper of Michael Moore, and Lincolnite that despises Presidents Bush (elder and son) and Ronald W. Reagan. In fact, Wlat never voted for a single Republican President. And if Walt wasn't tied up, he would probably come back and defend John Marshall - his liberal hero.