It seems to me that the real trouble here is your understanding of what a right or power is.
Your interpretation gives all government power to the federal government and none to states or local governments.
Not at all. 'My interpretation', my position, - is based on, and mirrors that of Prof. Barnett:
The Rights Retained by The People
Address:
http://www.randybarnett.com/rightsbypeople.html At #470, you admitted that his article was "pretty good". -- I suggest you reread it, as he explains the position in detail.
III. Implementing the Ninth Amendment
A. The Presumption of Liberty
Implementing the ninth amendment challenges us to protect unen-umerated rights without determining a final list of such rights and without lending credence to illegitimate claims of right. This challenge has proved too much for most judges and constitutional scholars.
Even for those who have the will to implement the ninth amendment, there seems to be no practical way. But there is.
As long as they do not violate the rights of others (as defined by the common law of property, contract and tort), persons can be presumed to be "immune" from interference by government.
Such a presumption means that citizens may challenge any government action that restricts their otherwise rightful conduct, and the burden is on the government to show that its action is within its proper powers or scope.
At the national level, the government would bear the burden of showing that its acts were both "necessary and proper" to accomplish an enumerated function, rather than, as now, forcing the citizen to prove why it is he or she should be left alone.
At the state level, the burden would fall upon state government to show that legislation infringing the liberty of its citizens was a necessary exercise of its "police power"—that is, the state's power to protect the rights of its citizens.
Although originally the ninth amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was most likely intended by the framers to be enforced only against the federal government, this was not because it was thought that the people had surrendered all their rights to state governments—a suggestion belied by the swift incorporation into most state constitutions of provisions identical to the ninth amendment.
Indeed, many rights—such as the right of conscience or the right to acquire property—were thought to be unalienable, which means that the people could not surrender them to any government even if they wanted to.
Rather, the Congress and the federal courts originally lacked jurisdiction to protect the retained "privileges or immunities" of citizens from abuses by their states.
As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war.
Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right.
"At #470, you admitted that his article was "pretty good". -- I suggest you reread it, as he explains the position in detail. "
I read it and agree with the major thrust of his argument about the nature of rights, but only with regard to federal powers.
The two words "equal protection" of the 14th cannot be so easily construed to dissolve the retained unnamed powers of the states. The idea that states must show how each law is directly needed to protect a right just does not wash. In fact, this standard is not even a very good one for federal law.
The test for federal law is whether it is Constitutionally authorized. The burden does fall on all levels of government to prove it has not violated an enumerated right.
For example, what right is protected by raising taxes? The only argument, by your standard, is that taxation is a necessary evil. Well, guess what, anything can be called a necessary evil. Taxation does not protect any specific enumerated or unenumerated right. It is, however, Constitutional because this power is specifically retained.
This power is also not prohibited to the individual states. This is why States can raise taxes, not because taxes protect rights.
The power to punish crime does not protect rights directly. It is a power retained to the federal government for certain causes and not prohibited to the States. (Although there are limitations to this power.)
" As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."
Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.