I did. The I said "we're on to the Ninth."
That is the central conflict in our Republic - whether the powers given the people and their representatives in the Tenth overrule the rights acknowledged to the people in the Ninth.
Personally, I come down on the side of the Ninth. But then, I believe in freedom. The Tenth is the final refuge of the nanny state, and only the Ninth keeps us free.
Or one might posit: The Ninth is the final refuge of the anarchist, and only the Tenth keeps us civilized.
In a republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution, the people govern through their representatives. While you deride those who advocate rules to govern behavior as "nanny-staters" the Tenth amendment reserved the powers to the states and the people to govern themselves so long as they do not violate the Constitution. If people are unhappy with the rules of one state, they can (a) lobby to have the laws changed, or (b) move to a state that has laws more to their liking. Unfortunately, in the age of Marbury, liberals and licentious activists who want to force their own ideas on the rest of us have found that when they can't win the battle of ideas at the ballot box they can have a friendly judge overrule the powers of the states or the people by discovering new "rights" in the Constitution. But the decisions are never based on the Ninth amendment, but rather on the 14th. You apparently like this arrangement as you have stated you think it is "good law".
The 14th amendment is very good taken at face value, in which it guarantees that states cannot violate the basic rights of its citizens.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Of course the problem arises when courts decide to expand these "privileges or immunities of citizens" to include the right to never be made uncomfortable, or the right to never be forced to view an expression of a religious thought on public property, or other such ridiculous notions never intended in the Bill of Rights nor in the 14th Amendment as drafted, debated, and ratified.