No, actually they expressly avoided that.
On page 197 of _Creating the Bill of Rights_ the following exchange from The Congressional Register for 18 August 1789 is presented:
The 9th proposition in the words following was considered, "The powers not delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively."
Mr. Tucker Proposed to amend the proposition by prefixing it, "all powers being derived from the people," thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly" so as to read "The powers not expressly delegated by this constitution."
Mr. Madison Objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers, there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution be descended to recount every minutiae. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and after full and fair discussion was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.
Mr. Sherman Coincided with mr. Madison in opinion, observing that corporate bodies are supposed to possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed.
Mr. Tucker Did not view the word "expressly" in the same light with the gentlemen who opposed him; he thought every power to be expressly given that could be clearly comprehended within any accurate definition of the general power.
Mr. Tucker's motion being negatived, The committee then rose and reported the amendments as amended by the committee So, we can conclude that the omission of the word "expressly" was intentional, and the intent was to acknowledge the existence of Federal powers by implication.
So how about that?
In fact, the framers did the -opposite- of what you suggest.
You need to stop using that CSA flag in your posts. People will associate it with ignorance.
Walt, there you go again. You sound like Clinton when he said "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
However, the way things were set up was with the idea of LIMITED Governmental powers, contrary to what you are professing. You need to go back and study the Founder's intent at the time of the Framing of the Constitution.
James Madison: "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it."
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson
U.S. Supreme Court: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816):
The Federal Government "can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication."
And NO I WILL NOT stop using that flag, it is my heritage, my right and my freedom of expression. The ignorance comes from those who would try to infringe upon my right of self expression telling me to stop flying it! That's what liberty is all about ... if it offends you grow a thicker skin.