No you are either dense or intentionally being dense because the point I am making is not convenient for you.
You are instructing me on the existence and legitimacy of implied and derived powers as though I am denying their legitimacy. No you lack sufficient knowledge to understand my point. My point was/is that arguments can be and are successfully made for the existence of implied powers such as the power of judicial review via the Marbury case- but that the requirement is always that the proponent must demonstrate and identify the relationship between the implied power (or not) and the constitution. The fact that the proponents in Marbury were successful does not relieve Roe proponents from the burden of also doing that. Instead, Roe just flailed around talking about right to privacy and all sorts of made up shit that they felt good about but no one knows where the hell it exists. FAIL. Marbury case. NOT FAIL. See if you can spot the difference.
Let's - just for quick giggles- review Alito's own frustrations on this - FROM THE OPINION:
"Roe expressed the “feeling” that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance.
The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text. Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned." - Justice Samuel Alito.
WOMP.........womp.....womp. But, but, but........Your Honor.......Marbury v. Madison .