A LITERAL reading of the Constitution does not tell you what the 9th Amendment MEANT. It only tells you what it SAID. A LITERAL reading of the Constitution ignores the history of the enactment, because that history is NOT part of the text of the Constitution.
And a LITERAL reading of the Constitution will force you to allow child porn, and to either allow people to have missile batteries in their basements, if they want them, or allow the government to register all firearms, depending on how you interpret those words "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed".
LITERAL readings of the Bill of Rights still gets to contrary results.
We can start with the First Amendment and then move to the Second for examples of this.
What do those words MEAN? "Militia". "Infringment". How much of a reduction is "infringement"? You argued above that preventing people from either taking child porn pictures or reading them is not an infringement of the freedom of the press. Of course it is, by any standard reading of the word "infringement".
We can go through things LITERALLY, if you'd like.
You won't stay literal for long.
You'll start insisting on history, which is NOT the "literal text of the Constitution", but is interpretive material that is totally outside of the Constitutional text. That's fine. In fact, it's a recognition that LITERAL reading and application of the Constitution leads straightaway to a MESS in the Bill of Rights, and takes us to results that are so revolting that none of us wants them.
Uh, yes, it does. Especially when it is read along with its neighbor the 10th.
Try again.