We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Those opposed to the Bill of Rights did have a good point, but I wonder if our rights would have eroded more quickly if there wasn't an amendment you could point to. It's hard enough keeping our rights that are spelled out (e.g. Freedom of speech took a pretty big hit with McCain-Feingold).
The Bill of Rights, as the SupCt is interpreting it, is only a speedbump on the path to tyranny. It provides context for the proper part of "necessary and proper". The plain language of "Congress shall make no law ..." is ignored. The SupCt says there are no absolute rights, does a balancing test between government objectives (regulate campaign spending) and the people's rights, and shaves away the rights of We the People. Without the BoR, our Courts would have long ago given unlimited power to the Executive and Legislature.
The SupCt says that as long as they can distinguish that government power are not yet unlimited, then necessary and proper is what the Legislature says it is. It is a Zeno's Paradox SupCt, they allow our Government to come as close as possible to unlimited power without actually being there.
The only recourse, is for We the People to elect a Legislature that is truly dedicated to the Constitution, and refuses to violate the plain meaning. The weak reed Courts will allow the Constitution to be parsed into irrelevance. The Legislature must have the discipline to refuse to go there.
To summarize, if We the People do not elect Representatives who bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, then our Republic is lost. The Courts cannot and will not protect us from Rubicon-crossing little Caesars.
In many ways, our republic is already lost, though I hold out hope for a gradual reversion to it. I remember when I was a kid, "subsidy" was a bad word. The concept of "states rights" was alive and well. The idea of personal responsibility was followed by most people. In short, in so many areas, things have changed and not for the better. We were supposed to have a "Great Society" but when you hear the incidents of utter depravity that are so common - at least compared to the '50s - you realize this is the kind of society you pay money for (the best things in life are free).
Now things were not perfect in the '50s (racism is an ugly thing), but there is no logical reason that ridding society of most of the white/black racism had to create the problems we see now.