There are some arguments that just chap my hide and one of them is the assertion ‘it is not in the Constitution’ as a proof as to why something is illegitimate.
Most often this is found by people who are debating the status of the separation of church and state. They throw this statement out as if it is the ultimate reason why those of us who feel strongly about maintaining the boundary between church and state should just capitulate.
If it is not in the Constitution we wouldn’t dare suggest that there is merit to the position of maintaining a boundary, a separation of church and state. That is among the weakest position that can be taken because it establishes a poor precedent that anything not contained within the Constitution is illegal or of lesser worth/merit/value.
Now I am just typing away, composing at the keyboard so there may be some holes in my position but I would argue that it is better to maintain a position of the Constitution being a living document then something that is set in stone.
And since the Framers established a method of amending the Constitution I would posit that it is their intent that we be given the means to adapt, adopt and adjust to future circumstances because they knew that they couldn’t possibly account for nor foresee all occasions.
‘It is Not In The Constitution’ is not sufficient. If you want to prove that something is without merit you need to do better than that.