I am having a difficult time believing you have read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments from the conclusion you have promulgated above.
The Ninth Amendment states, without any ambiguity, "The enumertaion in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
I do not understand how you can make the assertion that "The Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee the people any rights whatsoever."
I do not know of any other meaning you can assign to the words penned in the Ninth amendment, words such as "rights," or "shall not deny or disparage," or "people" and then declare "The Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee the people any rights whatsoever.?"
Then you subsequently state, "Its purpose is to guarantee that matters upon which the Constitution is silent are left to the states to decide."
Isn't the Tenth amendment the definitive declaration on what the "states...decide?"
"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."
Now if you are questioning the "jurisdiction" of the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of a sovereign state, that is a legitmate question, but was answered with the ratification of the 14th amendment, which in my opinion, strenghtened the Ninth amendment but weakend the 10 amendment so severly, rendering it superflous.
One more point I would like to make, that I did not compose but was composed by Jon Roland of the Constitutional Society:
"Every right recognized by the Constitution is an immunity, that is, a right against a positive action by government, and is equivalent to a restriction on delegated powers. Conversely, every delegated power is a restriction on immunities. An immunity may be expressed either as a declaration of the right, or as a restriction on powers."