They are not in conflict, correct.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
One of the enumerated rights -clearly- is that the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land.
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Now, one of the powers delegated to the United States lies in the supremacy clause, which reads:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The fact is that United States law is supreme to any state right, or even of the people.
This is because the -people- make the laws.
The 9th and 10th amendments have absolutely nothing to do with the legality or lack thereof of secession. They don't even come into play. This is because the --laws--of--the--United--States-- include the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Militia Act of 1792.
Those laws are supreme -- no state law, ordinance, or document can budge them -- just as the Supreme Court said --unanimously-- in the Prize Cases.
Walt
Can you translate that for me? How is the supremacy clause a right?
Now, one of the powers delegated to the United States lies in the supremacy clause, which reads
The supremacy clause does not delegate a power. It states that laws made pursuant to the delegated powers have authority over overlapping state statutes.