Well, I think that that I referred to rights reserved for the state or the people; if I didn't, I should have done so. And, yes, the enumeration amendment clearly ought to be interpreted strictly, and then property rights would be protected because the Constitution give the federal government few explicit powers over property (interstate commerce). Only in retrospect do we realize that there should have been an equivocally worded amendment to protect property--an amendment VERY hard to squirm around, like protection of free speech. Probably the founders realized that that would conflict with the taxing power. You would make your point as well, I think, without the implied superiority and the insults...also, without the all-caps shouts. This is a long haul battle, my friend; we must calm down, be patient, and be relentlessly persistent in making the rational case in a way that can't be dismissed. Your rhetoric is too easily dismissed as immature... But I'm glad that you do know and deeply respect the Constitution.