The problem is that the "mangling" occurred long ago and have been largely accepted as "settled law." This "mangling" is not a particularly new phenomenon. The

The problem is that the "mangling" occurred long ago and have been largely accepted as "settled law." This "mangling" is not a particularly new phenomenon. The 9th and 10th Amendments long ago were widely considered by the courts to be fairly limited and, in the 10th Amendment's case, redundant. There are very few cases in which the 9th and 10th Amendment have been used to strike down federal laws. In the 1940s the Supreme Court ruled that basically the amendment stated a fact which would still be true even if the amendment did not exist. And the 9th Amendment is limited because the wording of the amendment makes it clear that it only limits expansion of enumerated powers; the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have long ago been interpreted as granting the government powers beyond the enumerated powers (powers to which the 9th Amendment does not apply). These interpretations are unlikely to change - they have many judicial precedents.