Whenever I see people talking about how any portion of the Constitution can deny or disparage people's rights, it brings this to mind:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 'saving to suitors' clause recognizes a right people have.
Further, the 9th doesn't say "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights people have, ..." It doesn't limit the scope of enumerated rights to only the people's rights, but is much broader and includes any rights the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or the Officers and Employees may have.
To me, this is very elementary seeing as how the very purpose of creating these governments in the first place was to protect people's rights... even from the government.
Further, regarding the position that the individual people are not sovereigns, I'll stick with what John JAY, the very first CHIEF JUSTICE of the supreme Court published in the first major case it tried (seeing as he knew the Framers and his concept of "original intent" came from first hand interactions with them):
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and have none to govern but themselves[.] --Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 - Supreme Court 1793
The only dissenting opinion in that case didn't dissent on this fact.
Further still, interpretations of the 11th amendment (or any portion of the Constitution, or any creation of the Officers and Employees of the STATE[S]) which are construed to deny or disparage the sovereign rights of the people are invalid - tho, in practice, due to the ignorance of the majority of the people of their rights, powers, and duties, they are trampled every day by some of the Officers and Employees of the STATES and the UNITED STATES.
I can not think anyone who would waste our time with such positions as MYSTICONE has presented is anyone's "BUDDY." This kind of self defeatism is like a virus... and just because a group of people is trying to enslave another group doesn't make them slaves... someone only becomes a slave when they accept they are a slave.
Magnanimously,
Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES
P.S.
The poll in this thread is lame. It's like asking someone: "Are you still beating your children?"
Albeit, a bit more sophisticated then that...