I think you're missing my point (and that of Justice Stevens in the quote). It's not an issue of the 9th amendment being applicable to the states or incorporated by the 14th.

The 9th amendment is, as you noted, an interpretational aid. Another wording might read: "Just because a right is not articulated in the Constitution doesn't mean there is no such right."

But that's all it says! It recognizes that rights can exist (and are legally recognized) outside the realm of the Constitution. But if they are outside the realm of the Constitution, they are (by definition) not constitutional rights.

I agree, there are some non-enumerated rights that are in fact constitutional rights. Freedom of association is one we agree on. I also agree that certain things you might lump together and call "privacy" can also fall into this category.

But the 9th Amendment doesn't add rights to the Constitution. Those rights are either to be found elsewhere in the constitution (explicitly or implicitly) or they are not constitutional rights. That's one part of the Griswold and Roe decisions that I think was inappropriate. As a sort of side argument, in trying to bolster their conclusions, the court essentially said that additional rights can be found in the 9th amendment. That is inconsistent with the Stevens quote from the Upton decision I cited above.

And sorry about the name calling. That was meant for Ron, in fun - it's part of what we do.