Respectfully no. I am a strict constructionist of a variety that has been called "originalists." I found this out in www and I think it describes me pretty well:
Eight Reasons to be an Originalist
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.
2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.
3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.
4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).
5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.
6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.
7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years (or later) from now to ask what we intended to adopt.
8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.
.. Examples of Originalist Judges
Justice Hugo Black
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas
Judge Robert Bork
BTW - I consider the 10th to be an important ammendment. It limits the powers of the federal government to those spelled out in the constitution. Plus, it reserves for states, or the people, any thing else not specifically forbidden to them in the constitution. That is hardly a view that nullifies the 10th.
Same here. While the original intent of the First Amendment may not protect pornography as "free speech", by the same token there is no enumerated power who's original intent was to enable Congress to mandate the seizure of pornography by state or local police.