Can we amend some amendments?

This will be short due to time constraints. Nonetheless, I must rant.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well, now isn't that great? It is pretty clear there are some "rights" out there not mentioned in the constitution, like the highly inclusive right of privacy perhaps, but it isn't clear who has them and who isn't allowed to mess with them except that the Federal Government neither has them nor can touch them. So, my fellow Constitutional law scholars, we have a problem; a problem the Court has yet to really address.

Really these amendments need to be changed...Replaced...something. I'm very much the advocate of states rights, but I'm even more an advocate for individual rights. Ultimately, fundamental rights (and yes, that is ambiguous in and of itself) should be retained by the people exclusively. States should have no say in that area.

Now the question really is, what is fundamental? If the right to an abortion fundamental? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? The question depends on how you define the right; there may not be a fundamental right to have an abortion, but there may be a fundamental right to privacy and decisional autonomy. Should the government have any say at all in what we do with our bodies? Or is that ultimately a moral choice - one which has consequences before God and no other? Then again, if you say it is a moral choice, the bible if very clear about civil obedience and the need to obey the government. No man (or woman) has power but for the grace of God.

Regardless, the Framers could have been a lot more clear about who has what rights. If they had just said that rights not given to the Federal Government or States in the Constitution or the amendments were reserved to the people, that would make studying for a Con Law exam easier...and Constitutional jurisprudence more manageable. However, we are faced with debates of static and dynamic rights, of expressed and implied liberties, of original intent versus evolving mores. Posterity has been given the task of defining individual rights, who has them, and who can limit them. Wouldn't it have been better to say that in the first place?