Why do conservatives want us to have as narrow a degree of rights
I was talking with a conservative talk show host and he was of the opinion that while the 9th Amendment does protect rights not enumerated or previously listed in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, the courts don't have the ability nor power to protect them. I had gotten him to admit that there were some rights under the 9th, because I had backed him in a corner by stating to him that his belief must be than that the 9th Amendment, when it comes to individual rights, is meaningless and serves no purpose. I had stated this to him because he decried a right to privacy which theGriswold v Connecticut U.S. Supreme Court case guaranteed back in the 1960s.
This court case dealt with a law in that state which banned contraceptives, even for married couples. Now, the host had agreed of course that it was stupid for states to have bans such as this. He is not a pure theocrat such as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum who does indeed want states banning things such as contraceptives or homosexual sex among adults. But like many conservatives, the host still believed that states have a right to do such things because a right to privacy or any analogous right isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Now, getting back to his opinion that while there are rights protected by the 9th Amendment but that they can't and shouldn't enforced by our judicial system. I have to state than, that those rights must be completely meaningless. What kind of right exists when it can't be protected or enforced? Well, simply, it doesn't. It would be absurd to even call it a right if it is not enforceable. Look, the argument that the 9th Amendment doesn't clearly state out specific rights and is so by than vague is fair, but there is a reason the 9th Amendment is vague, so it can guarantee rights not listed.
After all, our Founding Fathers didn't give us a narrow degree of rights, but a broad degree of rights. The burden is on the government to show why a right doesn't exist and to limit any restrictions as much as possible. That is why the police can't by tiny dictators in their interactions with the public. As government officials we afford them only enough power (with restrictions) in order to ensure public safety.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution, but are natural or natural to the human condition. They are a result of evolutionary process that led to human beings that yearn for liberty. The Constitution is a protector of natural rights along with being a social contract. If we limit the freedoms of Americans to the literal letter of the Constitution. Indeed, many of the Founders were fearful of creating the Bill of Rights because they knew some (including 200 years later) would than wish to limit our liberty to only the literal protections of the Constitution. They were right.