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 Constitution is an incredibly short document, although a lot is packed into those words. In my opinion, it is a framework of principles which may not be violated. It certainly is not a comprehensive document that tells us exactly what to do in every situation.
In order for that framework to be functional, it's necessary to "fill in the blanks" to address situations where the Consititution is silent. That gives rise to implied powers. As long as those implied powers are consistent with the specific framework in the written Constitution, I have no problem with them, and I don't think those who drafted the Constitution would, either.
It's a matter of perspective. Those who follow the Ron Paul view of the Constitution believe that unless an action is specifically provided for in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional. I think that's silly and unworkable. I think that unless that same action violates either the specific language of the Constitution, or the principles that the language represents, it is constitutional.
There is NO doubt in my mind that the Federal Government has assumed powers which it is not entitled to have under the Constitution. But it does have powers which are consistent with the principles set out in the Constitution, but not specifically listed. (In my opinion, of course.)
Thanks friend!