One key point in judging the merits of an arguement is judging the qualifications of the person arguing. Chief Justice Rehnquist has degrees from Stanford and Harvard, as well as 31 years experience on the Supreme Court. You are an unknown. On the one hand the Chief Justice says that the constitutionality of the issue has not yet been definitively decided. On the other hand you claim he's full of it. Let's see...who to believe...Chief Justice or bag of wind...sorry, I still have to go with Chief Justice Rehnquist on this one.
Only in the weakest sense. Unaided appeal to authority is known as one of the sloppiest forms of argumentation available.
And in that case, one could easily note that Rehnquist's credentials as a long serving Supreme Court are at least matched by Roger Taney and Joseph Story, who both held opposite of him on habeas corpus. And Rehnquist's credentials, however great they may be, are in fact weaker on constitutional issues than John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, who represent the foremost of history's foremost figures on the constitution. Both Jefferson and Marshall held differently than Rehnquist. So where does that leave us? Five beats one, I guess.
You are an unknown.
Which only solidifies my point - you know virtually nothing of me beyond FR. You know nothing of my education, degrees, publication, professional credentials, or much of anything else. That fact in itself brings your argument trouble, as a full half of the equation required for you to make the judgment is missing from it. Try again.