Here is Napolitano saying in summary form the things that I have been writing that you fail to grasp (I guess the Judge and I share the same 0 IQ):
“Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 — notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution — made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers. The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.
The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. TR and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself. This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.”
You go beyond the Progressives in that you think some alleged “need” allows the Feds to ignore express prohibitions.
First, I don't always agree with Judge Napolitano, but in the quote you've posted, I'll take every word of his as my own.
Second, your accusation here is just ludicrous, and reflects the fact that you and the good judge share no IQ points in common.
That was of course the Founders' position.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
From 1861 to 1865 a rebellion was in full swing, and every year from 1861 to 1864 invasions of actual Union states by large forces in the service of a purported "foreign power" took place.
IOW, throughout the Civil War both rebellion and invasion were in progress, fully authorizing suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights if "the public safety requires it."
One can make a claim that the public safety did not require such action, in which case the suspension of civil rights would not be constitutional. But I don't think there is a very good argument for such a position.