We know what the 9th and 10th amendments are. The Constitution did not authorize power to the states either: The Federal government was a federation of already existing states agreeing to give certain limited powers to a national government representing them, the opposite of what we have today with state statism as a layer under the thumb of national statism.

State constitutions differed and often had flaws of their own. The 14th amendment later in essence extended the Bill of Rights to limit state powers, but it is clearly not enough.

Discussion by conservatives of what proper government should be too often treats the constitution instead of philosophical principles as the standard. Rejecting the typical conservative notion of "state experiments" is based on principles of the rights of individuals far more fundamental than what any constitution says or permits.

As for populist controls in the name of 'rights', logical arguments against it cannot appeal to those with the wrong premises. "Bludgeoned over the head with their own stupidity" as the consequence of populism does not change minds. People seeing and experiencing what they don't like does not tell them what is right. In an age of Pragmatism, in particular, they simply try to "adjust" with further statism to make it "work" under the usual pressure group warfare. Most often, decline under increasing statism only results in people becoming accustomed to the new level of deprivation without knowing what to do about it, even if they sense that somehow something is wrong.

The "challenge" and the antidote are to change the culture for the better with better ideas, which was Ayn Rand's purpose with a philosophy that improves the Enlightenment with a proper defense of reason and individualism. No form of "bludgeoning", self inflicted or not, can help understanding. At best, a few people are shaken out of complacency in their ideas and see the need to check and replace their premises, but need to be shown what is better.