The word "expressly" (or as you put it, specifically) does not appear in the tenth. If "expressly" had been placed in the Constitution, the Necessary and Proper of Art. I, Sec. 8 would have been repealed, making the Constitution no better than the Articles (or so Federalists argued). Madison, who drafted the first 12 proposed Amendments (10 of which are the Bill of rights, 1 was never ratified, and the last is the 27th Amendment) was heavily critized for this, since the opposition to the Constitution and the supporters of a bill of rights knew that the Amendment was mostly fluff and did little to restrict the power of Congress. That didn't stop ratification, since they felt a little was better than nothing. What are you talking about? The Necessary and Proper clause only permits the making of legislation which is necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers. Those foregoing powers being the enumerated ones.
In other words, they are given the power to write laws to make their other powers a reality. They are not given a carte blance by this clause to invoke new powers not granted.
SD
While I agree with you, the SCOTUS hasn't for the last 180 years. Read the debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians about the creation of the First National Bank, and see the case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) about creation of the Second National Bank, where the USSC gave Congress "implied powers". Since then, we've been on the slippery slope, such that every time a Congresscritter wanted pork outside the enumerated powers, they just cried "Necessary and Proper".
The dialogue between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians gives good insight into the intended meaning of the Necessary and Proper clause and the Xth, since both were the written by a Jeffersonian.