Hamilton was Pretty Smart

Boy was Hamilton right here. In Federalist 84 when he argued against a Bill of Rights:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

In other words, if one grants protections against abuses of powers not granted, does this not infer that there may be powers not explicitly defined? Indeed, the existence of the Bill of Rights allows for disputes about what they mean. If the Founders had stuck to their original desire, the disputes over these issues would be limited to the states. However, the existence of the BoR, and especially the addition of the 14th Amendment, sets the stage for conflicts like the Texas sodomy law case, which arguably should be limited to the government of the state of Texas.

Having noted this, I would point out that it is impossible, at this stage of our political evolution (an evolution that started with the passage of the first ten amendments), to expect that pure federalism would be in operation.

And yes, I realize that what I am talking about, and what Hamilton is talking about in the quote is not the exact same thing. However, the general point is that the introduction of the Bill of Rights sets the stage for murkiness over their meaning, application and scope, and further, set the stage for conflicts over these issues at the national level, rather than the state level.