[justshutupandtakeit]

How do you figure the determination that the constitution covered the issue in Gibbons to be a support of the 9th or 10th? It upheld federal supremacy over interstate commerce.

Martin also is not relevent to the irrelevency of the 9th or 10th.

Thornton also appears to address nothing relevent in this discussion. I have not been able to access it easily but apparently it involves the right of states to place term limits upon their elected officials. If that is the case with the ruling, there is nothing new in it to me, I have consistently maintained that states have the authority to make rules and laws which affect their residents only. Actually the refusal by the USSC to allow states to term limit elected federal officials is additional proof of the illegality of secession. States can't even term limit a Congressman but CAN secede? Right, that makes a lot of sense.

Given the track record of the above cases in not supporting your contention, I'll pass on the others for now. My time is quite limited in dealing with these long settled issues.

[4CJ]

How do you figure the determination that the constitution covered the issue in Gibbons to be a support of the 9th or 10th?

Misdirection? You originally wrote 'The 9th and 10th amendments are little more that face-saving gestures to the recalcitrants and have been shown to have little, if any, impact upon the development of the nation. As far as I can see, as I have stated many times to the consternation of those opposed to American power, they are essentially irrelevent. Whether I want them to be or not. I have asked often for those believing them significant to point to the legal cases indicating my error. So far, none have been able too.'

The list of cases address federalism, state sovereignty and/or the Tenth Amendment. And they do conatin some glittering, gleaming, nuggets of gold:

[R]eference has been made to the political situation of these States, anterior to its formation. It has been said, that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. ...

In support of this argument, it is said, that they [the several states] possessed it as an inseparable attribute of sovereignty, before the formation of the constitution, and still retain it, except so far as they have surrendered it by that instrument; that this principle results from the nature of the government, and is secured by the tenth amendment.
Justice Marshall,Gibbons v. Ogden

Martin also is not relevent to the irrelevency of the 9th or 10th.

[I]t is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the state governments, by their respective constitutions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States. ...

The government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication.Justice Story, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Included in that decision is this gem:

The same expression, 'shall be vested,' occurs in other parts of the constitution, in defining the powers of the other co-ordinate branches of the government. The first article declares that 'all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States.' Will it be contended that the legislative power is not absolutely vested? that the words merely refer to some future act, and mean only that the legislative power may hereafter be vested? The second article declares that 'the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.' Could congress vest it in any other person; or, is it to await their good pleasure, whether it is to vest at all? It is apparent that such a construction, in either case, would be utterly inadmissible.

In other words, legislative powers (including the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be delegated to the Executive.

Justice Stevens in Thornton (read it here), wrote, "Petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument misconceives the nature of the right at issue because that Amendment could only "reserve" that which existed before." Which is not what the Constitution states, as Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, 'These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'