In theory, but in practice that is more of an accepted convention than a hard rule and dependent on the willingness of the other branches to rein it in. As the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, including how to read and interpret existing language - they can do what they can get away with.

For instance, the text of the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that the original intent was that states were sovereign except for those powers explicitly carved out to the Federal gov't - "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."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...]

Since WW2 (and a bit before that, including rulings 'reinterpreting' the commerce clause to cover things like growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption within an individual state to assist the Executive in enforcing price controls over the economy), the supreme court has ruled that essentially Congress can regulate anything it wants, city, state and federal level. This is how we've ended up with things like federal laws against possession of drugs (even in states that have them legalized), federal laws regulating firearms (including possession of ones that are legalized in the state), federal laws on computer crimes, etc.

If that isn't a radical shift and expansion of an amendment (without going through a further amendment process), I don't know what is.

Similarly on the defacto removal side - 4th amendment protections and Asset Forfeiture, which allows near arbitrary and impossible to stop seizure of 'suspicious' assets has been ruled constitutional on a very flimsy basis - essentially as long as it gets rubber stamped by the courts, good to go.