That's right. Congress has the power to make laws. The president has the power to sign or veto. And the Court gets to decide what the Constitution means, with no appeal.
Therefore things not listed, are to remain with the states.
That's not how it's gone down. As early as the Washington administration, the "implied powers" doctrine was employed (by Hamilton, of course) to justify the creation of a national bank. There is no power listed that says "the power to create a bank." But Hamilton argued that it was an implied power. Justice Marshall later codified the same argument into law. Any power that is directed towards a "legitimate end" of the government is also a delegated power.
Check out Antifederalist 32:
This constitution considers the people of the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original compact; it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent with it. This not only results from its nature, but is expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, "in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers; among these is the power "to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion. No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them......And in the last paragraph of the same section there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper. It is true the 9th section restrains their power with respect to certain subjects. But these restrictions are very limited, some of them improper, some unimportant, and others not easily understood, as I shall hereafter show. It has been urged that the meaning I give to this part of the constitution is not the true one, that the intent of it is to confer on the legislature the power to lay and collect taxes, etc., in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare. To this I would reply, that the meaning and intent of the constitution is to be collected from the words of it, and I submit to the public, whether the construction I have given it is not the most natural and easy. ..
The great and only security the people can have against oppression from this kind of taxes, must rest in their representatives. If they are sufficiently numerous to be well informed of the circumstances, . . . and have a proper regard for the people, they will be secure. The general legislature, as I have shown in a former paper, will not be thus qualified,' and therefore, on this account, ought not to exercise the power of direct taxation. If the power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven.
A very clear extrapolation of exactly how the Constitution would in fact be construed.
but I don’t really agree that the tenth is toothless. It’s not been enforced, respected or whatever, that’s for sure.
Who is going to enforce it? The states? The Constitution declares itself supreme, the laws of the states notwithstanding. The Constitution reserves for itself, through the SCOTUS, the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. At best, the 10th amendment is a statement of the right to rebel, but the Constutition gives the national government the power to suppress such rebellions. If the national government wants more power, they take it. Who enforces the 10th amendment under the Constitution? The inmates hold the key to the cell.
The states could, theoretically, call a convention. That's in the Constitution. The truth is, though, that the national government--and political parties--use their muscle, their money, and their influence to ensure that this doesn't happen. The state governments are run by party hacks. They are agents of the national government.
The 2nd amendment guarantees the citizens the right to overcome any unconstitutional laws. We will enforce the Constitution if need be.
Rather a depressing reply in that I can’t poke holes in it.
You make a strong argument that I’m not qualified to challenge. I don’t see a reasonable objection to be made.
And so it goes, the federal government able to enslave us at will.