Which of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are still functional?

Good question. Love seeing people just write "all of them" as if they didn't even think about it. Enjoy your fascism.

Now, to answer the question as I see it:

I would say none of the Bill of Rights are at 100% power, but some of them have been significantly ignored or abridged.

The 1st amendment has been torn to shreds, in particular: the right to assemble / freedom of association, freedom of expression (in particular, "anti-American" ideas, like this answer)

The 2nd amendment has largely been made impotent as well. People don't take personal responsibily for themselves and rely on the government to protect them.

3rd. I would say this amendment is not very significant at this time.

4th: Essentially gone due to the Patriot Act, wire-tapping, etc. Warrantless-searches anyone?

5th: Pretty much eroded. People can still assert their "5th amendment" rights but the gov't often deprives people of the life, liberty, and property. A recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain weakened this amendment as well.

6th: Military Commissions Act has all but destroyed this amendment. People are being held without notice of charges against them at Guantanamo Bay, and this is not limited to foreigners. Anyone can be designated an "enemy combatant" (a title that has no constitutional basis, whatsoever) and have their 6th amendment rights violated.

7th: This seems intact for the most part.

8th: Cruel and unusual punishment. I would argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. That's up for opinion.

9th: Ha, all day politicians "construe" the constitution to deny people their rights. So moot on this one.

10th: Functionally, this amendment is dead. Most functions have been unconstitutionally absorbed by the federal government.

So... I guess... there are different levels of "functional"ity.

2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

7 In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

All of them. We just need more constructionist justices on the Supreme Court, like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, to properly interpret them (i.e. the way the Founding Fathers intended).

BTW - the admendment about not quartering soldiers in civilian's houses is still technically valid although it has no practical application in our times.

1st Amendment is marginalized by "Thought" Crimes and by revisionist interpretation of regilious bans on school prayer, wearing of crosses on lapels, etc. When really, First Amendment bans "legislation" favoring or disfavoring religion.

2nd Amendment is heavily infringed in different areas of the nation.

10th Amendment is heavily infringed.

Pretty much all of them, although the one about quartering troops is more or less moot. Still the fact that it is there means the government can not compel you to house and feed soldiers in your home.

All of them

All of them.