A key concerning this issue was Barron v Baltimore (1833).
Ah, yes. A ruling by my blood cousin, crazy old John Marshall from my mother's side of the family. We visited his house in Richmond a year or so ago. I was surprised to learn on the house tour that he had a large bunch of slaves. We also saw his pew in the Bruton Church in Williamsburg.
I hesitate to point to a preamble to prove anything since the meat of the document is what controls, not the preamble. The 1789 preamble to the Bill of Rights implies that the BOR was meant to protect against abuses of the Constitution by the central government. That is in keeping with Marshall's ruling. That's what the wording of the BOR itself seems to imply too. Our forefathers (most of them anyway) wanted a central government of limited or restricted powers. BOR Preamble.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.