The additional amendments added a measure of difficutly in revoking those rights once the concept of enumeration was lost. The concept of enumeration was going to be ingored, BoR or no BoR.
Please note they didn't prevent those rights from being lost, they merely slowed down the process. Once the concept of enumeration was abandoned, it was only a matter of time.
As an analogy, think of a sea wall surrounding a city. The sea wall is the concept of enumeration. The city is the Constitution. Within the city, the most valuable buildings (rights found in the BoR) are placed behind additional walls (the amendments found in the BoR). Once the sea wall is breached, water (excessive government) is going to flood everything within the city. The additional smaller sea walls hold the water back for a short time, but they will ulitmately fail once water gets to them.
I suppose the author's argument is that the people spent all their time tending to the smaller sea walls than tending to the large one that surrounds the city.
I contend that the larger sea wall was doomed from the start, due to the rising tides of socialism and the forces of domination that are inherent to human nature.
But, again, and I am NOT endorsing this argument, just wondering about it -- with no bor, I can see a free speech case or a newspaper case coming up back in the day when the lib sub-human filth buckets cared. So there'd be a Supreme Court case where the libs and the good people were on the same side. The ENUMERATION would be the solution to the case. The ENUMERATION would be the solution for THOUSANDS of cases. Don't you think? Surely this would have some effect?