There is a more basic concern about the BOR. The rest of the constitution was created with the understanding that once rules are written down, the first effort made will be to undermine and circumvent them.
For this reason, the rest of the constitution is a “balancing act” by equally powerful groups of people, with different prerogatives and motives, to keep other groups in check.
The most well known is the executive-legislative-judicial balance. But there is also the electoral balance of a truly democratically elected House; a state appointed senate; an electoral college appointed president; and presidential nomination, with senate (and thus state) approval of federal judges.
There is the balance of two senators for each state, which favors the smaller states; and population based number of congressmen, which favors the more populous states.
There is also the three way balance between the national government, the state governments and the people; with the intent that the states would protect the people from the abusive feds, and the feds would protect the people from the abusive states.
In any event, these balances worked generally well, except for abominations like the 17th Amendment
However, the BOR, as a “static” list of rules, has been horribly mauled by exceptions. For example, an effort to even list the exceptions to the first amendment is daunting.
But in the final analysis, all the balances only work so far as the collaboration between competing interests is maintained. If they work together “in the spirit of bipartisanship”, our rights are their first victim.
As you said, the system was set up first and foremost to be divided between the feds and states. THEN in importance were three branches, followed by a BOR.
The last one hundred years show a BOR unsupported by the competing interests of the States within the larger government is just a parchment barrier . . . worthless.