Not on the Ninth or Tenth, they can't. It's dead as a matter of Constitutional law, even if folks still have some attachment to it.
Bull. - Quote this 'law'.
--------------------------
...and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works. IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.
That's a fairly easy thing to say, especially fifty years removed. Might I suggest that the folks on the ground at the time had a better sense of what their practical options were?
Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.
-----------------------
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?
No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.
Surely you know the difference between de jure dead and de facto dead. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are de facto dead. How many laws have been overturned based on the protections afforded by those amendments?
Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.
I don't need to refute it - pointing out that it's just so much armchair quarterbacking serves well enough.
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?
No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.
Okay, I'll answer the question - what difference does it make what I think? Before the 14'th Amendment and subsequent court cases flowing from it, neither the states nor the courts nor the federal government thought that the Bill of Rights did much to restrict the states.
That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?