+9

continuing from the preceding post

How is it that opinion is not criticized?

If the court have taken the separate sections of prohibitions for federal and state governments (section 9 and 10) as being needed from the start to apply those prohibitions on both, it needed to answer why couldn't that be the result of the flow of expressing things which preceded section 9 with the section describing what congress can do. Why couldn't it be that the focus on entities not procedures was the starting point? That, actually, is probably the better path because many of those procedures are easier to express from the creation end than from the receiving end. At least with the prohibitions, general prohibition from the law creation end does not imply generality of the prohibition as much as it does from the receiving end and that is why each entity may need to be targeted specifically with those prohibitions. That is because prohibitions expressed from the creation end suggests the action being the target of the prohibition, instead of the end result, and that in turn could be seen to vary depending on the doer more than prohibition expressed from the receiving end. Therefore one may try to avoid, by specifying targets, being seen intending this relative difference .

Also, similar to the above, for the empowerment side, the prohibitions on states of what was empowered to the federal government could be caused by the probability of the same actions being seen as different things by extending the view of them to their actors. Coining  money could be justified by creating money for the state only. The action is one of those that creates different results based on the doer. 
As for entering a treaty or issuing of  marque and reprisal letters, assuming the later being equivalent to declaring a war, the court seems to have argued against itself with those examples. That is because in both the decision of the federal government include the involvement of the states but they were still listed as prohibitions on the states.  

As for the talk about the purpose of the constitution at the beginning of that opinion, the preamble states the creation of a "Constitution for the United States of America" not a constitution for merely its federal government.