Nope, an understanding of the concept of federalism leads to that conclusion. Since there were clear distinctions of the roles of the different levels of government within it. Only the fedgov could legislate matters which concerned the WHOLE. The other levels of government were restricted to matters only affecting those levels.
Most of the definitive constitutional case say nothing of the sort. Marshall's explanations of the Constitution are incredible demonstrations of logic, knowledge of the document and legal reasonings. They are masterpieces written only with the meaning of the constitution in mind.
Anything which is defined in a negative way is vague. I asked you about rights and you referenced the libertarian philosophy which is fine but hardly precise enough for operative actions. More specifically the powers in the 10th
are powers to legislate by states ONLY when they do not conflict with the laws passed under the Constitution. They have NO power to do ANYTHING which affects the Union as a whole. Hamilton says in Federalist 80 "...the peace of the WHOLE ought not to be left at the disposal of a PART."
Madison's take on federalism changed for the worse after Jefferson returned to the country. Before that he was as nationalist as Hamilton and as Federalist as Washington.
The demise of the 9th and 10th has not been the result of any "side" winning and certainly has nothing to do with any "socialistic" victory. Anyone could have challenged laws which presumably contravened them yet they were rarely done on that basis. Was EVERYONE pimps for the Nanny state? I don't think so. But such a view goes well with one in a tiny minority.
The demise of the 9th and 10th has not been the result of any "side" winning It is the result of the forces of big government winning over the forces of limited government. Let's just agree to disagree on this point.
and certainly has nothing to do with any "socialistic" victory.
If I recall correctly, FDR stacked SCOTUS in an effort to further erode the 10th as it stood in his way. He succeeded, and the New Deal was enacted. If you don't think the New Deal was socialist, further discussion will be useless.
Also, consider this example: At the federal level, pick of any given socialistic policy. There are many, but lets pick free prescription drugs. If the 10th is upheld, we look to Article I, Section 8 for a complete list of Congress' powers and authority. Prescription drugs aren't listed there, so the federal government lacks authority for such a program. Thus upholding the 10th will have prevented a socialistic policy from taking hold.
In this example it is clearly demonstrated the lack of enumerated powers as mandated by the 10th is an absolute necessity for socialism to take hold at the federal level.
If you can dispute that, I'd like to hear it.