You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated.
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state. to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
If a state violates an unenumerated right, the elected representatives or judges should fix the problem. If they do not, the citizens of that state should make them fix it. If the citizens do not, the only way the federal government should be involved is to specify the unenumerated right as protected through a Constitutional amendment.
Amendments are not needed. State officials are clearly bound by their Article VI oath to protect ALL of our Constitutional rights, -- enumerated or not.
The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process.
You are simply making that up. No such clause or wording exists in the Constitution.
From findlaw:
" -- There is an established principle that Congress may authorize the federal courts to compel state officials to comply with federal law, statutory as well as constitutional.
The Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary positions of state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply.
No doubt, there is tension between the exercise of Congress' power to impose duties on state officials and the developing doctrine under which the Court holds that Congress may not ''commandeer'' state legislative or administrative processes in the enforcement of federal programs.
However, the existence of the supremacy clause and the federal oath of office, as well as a body of precedent indicates that coexistence of the two lines of principles will be maintained. -- "
"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state. to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You quoted this (highlighting the ANY THING and ANY STATE) to support the idea of state governments being bound to the Constitution. The context is that a ratified treaty supersedes federal and state authority.
Nevertheless, we agree that states are bound by the Constitution. We disagree on HOW the unenumerated rights are to be protected. My point is that, barring specific powers being reserved to Congress or the Judiciary, federal government can do nothing legally without an amendment.
I said: " The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process."
You said: "You are simply making that up. No such clause or wording exists in the Constitution."
Not making it up:
Article [X.] - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This limits the jurisdiction of federal government, including the judiciary, to only act within the scope of specifically reserved powers.
Article XIV. - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process... equal protection... not made up. Unenumerated rights exist according to Article [IX.] Not made up. (OK. Not a real word, but you get the idea. Rights not enumerated.)
"The Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary positions of state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply." etc.
Not disputing federal jurisdiction to enforce law or the Constitution. Disputing that an unwritten list of rights can be acted upon by the federal judiciary. A Constitutionally valid law could enumerate a right, but otherwise the judiciary would be acting without authority to declare state law or action was invalid. It must be written by the legislature. It cannot be pulled from thin air by a judge.