Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
And 'implied' power cannot negate an EXPRESSED right.
To do so would nullify the purpose for the expression in the first place.
Those powers NOT given to the general government are retained to the States.
-----
According to you, the Founders could have written:
We hereby create the United States
and gone home!
-------
If that were the case, why were the State Constitutions retained?
If the States all became servants of the mighty federal government, what was the need for them?
It does not. The 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to approve any change in the status of a state, from admission to secession, is a power delegated to the United States. The fact that some of that is implied is meaningless because the Supreme Court recognized the existence of implied powers in the McCullouch v. Maryland case, and makes no distiction in validity between expressed and implied powers.
To do so would nullify the purpose for the expression in the first place. Those powers NOT given to the general government are retained to the States.
"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 everything 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 a 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 9th 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. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- Chief Justice Marshall, 1819
This thread has drifted pretty far afield from the main point I had in mind when I posted the announcement. Lincoln was arguably our greatest president. Honoring him is tantamount to honoring our country, because he saved it from dissolution. Nobody can argue with that, it's just a statement of fact.