This subject is precisely why the first ten amendments weren't in the original.
> One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication...This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment.
> Professor Laurence Tribe shares the view that this amendment does not confer substantive rights: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."
What's the alternative interpretation? A blank check to SCOTUS to strike down Congress citing whatever "rights" they thought of that morning?
Of course not, and thus Ninth Amendment has virtually never been cited in a (successful) court decision. For the simple reason that it doesn't state anything actually enforceable by the courts.
