The constitutional part is going on around here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=378199&cid=21564069 look up and down, there's more, but that's a good list.
The question I have is why would someone like ArcherB (796902) agree with a position that weakens individual power, and passes that up to the Government? By default? I'm all for the Government running certain things, but I think they ought to be legislated fairly. I don't agree with the idea that if it's not prohibited in the Constitution, the government can do it.
This seems the wrong way to look at it. The Constitution seems to obvously be a whitelist of government power, not a Blacklist of protected rights. In fact, in the most blacklist part, the Bill of Rights, ammendment 9 and 10 seem to say that plainly, little or no interpetation needed.
So why would any sane individual support government unchecked on any issues the founders did not think of 200 + years ago? They had to be writing as a whitelist that could be added to (ammendments) as things came up. Anything less seems like casting a 2ed D&D Wish spell with our real life government. You'll always get screwed.