I question whether the 14th even incorporated the 9th but I have no question that assigning the federal judiciary more power is a no no.
The incorporation clause is not needed for the 9th amendment in any event, because it does no purport to just restrict the scope of the federal government as does the First Amendment, as opposed to also leashing the States. The Ninth Amendment refers to rights reserved to the people, whatever that means. Nobody knows what that means. SCOTUS has rarely used it, because it has other more tangible tools to use. It did however use it once I know in a pinch, when it used it in Griswold, and maybe in Roe, to use it as part of the edifice on the "penumbra" doctrine. At least that is my recollection. So the use of the 9th Amendment by SCOTUS is not off to a good start. The Amendment is mischievous. It just gives SCOTUS another weapon to use, to do what it wants, when all else fails. Just my rather uninformed opinion.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, John, just a dirt bag provincial lawyer, practicing in obscure provincial courts.
By the way, your perspicacity test remains outstanding. Are you "man enough" to tackle it? :)