Can you clarify your question a bit more? How was it conflicting with any part of the Bill of Rights?

The 18th Amendment prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages nationwide, and the 21st simply removed that national prohibition. States could (and did) prohibit sale of alcohol before the 18th Amendment, and had the authority to do so after repeal.

I'm rather confused by this question.

The texts (and pointers to handy commentary from findlaw):

The 9th amendment, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 21st amentment, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment21.html

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. [that was alcohol prohibition]

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Would you please unpack your question? What unenumerated right do you see as being possibly infringed -- being unenumerated, it is unstated but it so important that people protest over it?

The 21st amendment loosens an earlier prohibition, but adds a restriction to allow states to regulate and tax intoxicating liquors more than the Interstate Commerce clause previously allowed.

Any amendment to the US Constitution can alter any previously enacted part (original or amendment). (Nitpick: There are possible exceptions with two entrenched clauses at the end of Article V, but one expired in nineteen ninety eight one thousand eight hundred and eight.)

The Supreme Court held in State Bd. of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 64 (1936) that a 'classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth'.

However, the findlaw annotation mentions more recent cases where, reconsidering its previous jurisprudence, the court attempted to harmonize the 21st Amendment with the Interstate Commerce clause, and struggled with the 14th Amendment (equal protection) or the Bill of Rights.

• "In Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that prescribed different minimum drinking ages for men and women as violating the equal protection clause. ... ''Neither the text nor the history of the Twenty-first Amendment suggests that it qualifies individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment where the sale or use of liquor is concerned.'"
• California v. LaRue 409 U.S. 109 (1972) and New York State Liquor Auth. v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714, 717 (1981), the court upheld regulation of liquor sales in conjunction with strippers or erotic film.
• But in Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, in re topless dancing in bars, the court overrode LaRue and held 'the Amendment does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution'.

So I gather that the question of whether the 21st Amendment might override a previous right or power is somewhat unsettled.