Actually not.Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument
I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.
I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.
Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.
Again, the Court has been consistent when addressing 10th Amendment claims: that the states are subordinate to acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts, which is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, including state governments.
It is inconsistent to assume that the Federal government alone is prohibited from violating citizens' rights, while at the same time allowing the states to do just that.
Inalienable rights are indeed inalienable – immune from attack by all governments: Federal, state, and local.