The 9th Amendment-like language included in most of our state constitutions in 1776 (15 years before the federal 9th Amendment) declares the libertarian theory that constitutions delegate a few specific enumerated powers to the state and all other rights are retained by the people.
But right from the start, at the same time that the libertarians were declaring that they didn't have to enumerate any of their rights, Torries in the judiciary ignored the libertarian theory of constitutional government proclaimed in the state bills of rights in 1776.
For example, according to Lysander Spooner, John Marshall--chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835--never declared ONE single federal or state statute unconstitutional on account of the statute's injustice, or its violation of men's natural rights.
So, from the beginning, Roscoe-like creatures have controlled the judiciary and treated the plain language of our bills of rights as mere ceremonial language that embarassingly contradicts their absurd authoritarian belief that constitutions are blank checks that allow governments to do whatever the hell they want with the natural rights of the people.
Despite lack of protection of individual rights from the government's judicial officers in the early republics, the people were still able to thwart unconstitutional statutes because back then the people determined their rights vis-a-vis the government, rather than the other way around. As Lysander Spooner pointed out:
The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
Even the Torries in the early republics admitted that the American people (not the government) were the final determiner of what rights the people retained and which statute's were constitutional:
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." --John Adams
"you [The jury] have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both [law and fact], and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." --John Jay