Prior to the Constitution, issues involving legal rights were generally a matter of evolved common law rather than statute. Part of the reason for writing a Constitution was to provide an explicit means of changing laws, rather than having the law evolve based upon the whims of judges. I see no reason to believe that the Founders wanted new rights to keep evolving based upon judicial whim; instead, they wanted changes to the Constitution to occur via the provided mechanism.
On a related note, one thing that has happened over the years is that the government has endeavored to infringe rights in such a way as to preclude effective remedy, and courts have gone along with it. Courts need to wake up to the facts that (1) the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures don't just mean they have the right to be free from some types of unreasonable searches and seizures; (2) the right of the people to be tried by a jury means the right to have a jury determine all factual matters relevant to their case, including in many instances, the question of whether a particular matter is relevant; (3) unconstitutional actions are illegitimate, and illegitimate actions form no part of any government agent's legitimate duties.
Please read the source article as your time allows. Barnett details a judicial approach to solve the problem Bork described at his Senate hearing.
When properly applied, as our Framers wrote the Constitution and evidenced in Congressional debate, the Ninth and the “necessary and proper” clauses limit government and promote our Natural Rights as stated in our Declaration.