No, I wasn't trying to be annoying, I was trying to be germane and find the decision to read it. I had been trying to stand aside from this particular micturition contest, but it became obvious I had to break down and read the damned decision, and not just the epitomes.
The issue here is that capitan keeps insisting that Ex Parte Bollman & Swartout was a treason case, not a case about habeas corpus. So he has a dog in the fight -- which is about his credibility, really -- and I didn't, so I was trying to stay out.
And your statement, paraphrasing capitan, "the matter of who could suspend habeas corpus was not a question before the bench" (emphasis added), is correct as far as it goes, but it's a red herring.
Marshall's decision does mention the source of the habeas power and who can wield it, which necessarily involves interpretation of who can suspend it as well. It's a casuistical argument as to whether Marshall's comments on that section of the Constitution are dicta or binding interpretation adjudicating the case before him. I'm not going to get into arguing with you over that.
We're all about five posts away from having to retain counsel to help with further discussion.
Hardly that, it's a central point in the claim by Nolu Chan and GOPcapitalist et.al. that Ex Parte Bollman ruled only congress can suspend habeas corpus, therefore Lincoln's actions were illegal. And far from needing to retain counsel any good legal dictionary will define obiter dictum for you, and any good civics text will point out that the Supreme Court cannot make advisory rulings because of the separation of powers. The court can only rule for the purpose of stare decisis on matters which have happened. Habeas corpus had not been suspended by anyone prior to the Bollman case. The court could therefore not rule on who may suspend the writ. Any comments made on who may suspend it therefore qualify as obiter dictum.