Try understanding it instead of just reading it, especially the relation between the two bolded words: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Gonzales is being technical to the point of absurdity. If the Constitution says haebas corpus can only be taken away in times of rebellion or insurrection, and we are not in such a state, then the 9th basically says it is a RIGHT (that others thingy) and the 10th basically prevent the feds from taking it away except for situations prescribed in the Constitution.
PERIOD.
Or, at least that's the way it used to be until people with your mindset came into power and decided that the 9th and 10th really weren't a constraint on federal power after all.
First of all, the Writ is not in the Bill of Rights, it's in Article 1. Second of all, it's enumerated as a privilege, not a right. Finally, what's your complaint with the plain reading of the Ninth? It makes plain that any rights not enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the people (thus underlining the intention for the maxim expressio unius est, exclusio alterius NOT to apply, which is what the Ninth is addressing.)
The law IS technical. Gonzales may be being coy or difficult or just yanking Spector's chain (a great temptation), but he is technically correct. The Constitution grants no rights.
That is certainly true. It is the one thing that the author may have gotten right.
"While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,..."
If Gonzalez thought that Specter or any other Senator could appreciate this semantic nit picking it demonstrates his own ignorance.