The problem is that if the scope of the Ninth Amendment is potentially radically expanded by the 14'th, the Tenth is radically curtailed by it. There are lots of powers the states no longer have by virtue of the 14'th Amendment, chief among them the fact that they no longer have (virtually) any powers that restrict an individual's rights under the Bill of Rights. Look at the body of 4'th, 5'th, and 6'th Amendment law over the last 70 years, and I think you'll find it hard to disagree that the powers of the states are significantly less in those areas than they were in the 19'th century...
That's been tried before. It generally doesn't work out well for the states that attempt it.
No, I don't think it has, primarily because these states have no real basis to violate individual rights, and acknowlege that fact in their political decisions. - IE, they can't get voting citizens to support laws that violate rights.
The problem is that if the scope of the Ninth Amendment is potentially radically expanded by the 14'th, the Tenth is radically curtailed by it. There are lots of powers the states no longer have by virtue of the 14'th Amendment,
They never have had the power to violate individual rights.
chief among them the fact that they no longer have (virtually) any powers that restrict an individual's rights under the Bill of Rights.
Exactly! -- Why do you think a state SHOULD have such powers? Our constitution was formed 'to secure the blessings of liberty', -- and life, and property.
You disagree with some of the personal freedoms guaranteed by the 14th, so you wish to blame the constitutional process it outlines.
- There is nothing 'wrong' with the 14th, or the constitution.
- While most 'everything' is wrong with our political processes.