[GOPcapitalist]

To the case before it. But since habeas corpus had not been suspended then it was not a matter before the court, and your answer is incorrect.

Your arbitrary exclusion of case material that you do not like is amusing though ultimately wrong, non-seq. The court can rule on anything that is material to the case. If the habeas corpus clause is material to the case the court can rule on it, whether there was a suspension or not. Marshall did just that, finding the habeas corpus clause to be the basis upon which Congress could constitutionally authorize the courts to issue writs and thus, necessarily, the only way that authority could be withdrawn from the courts.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your arbitrary exclusion of case material that you do not like is amusing though ultimately wrong, non-seq.

And your constant inclusion of opinion masquerading as fact is asinine, though consistent. Why was the question of who may suspend it material to the case? The question before the court was whether it had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus at all, noth whether or not it could be suspended.

Marshall did just that, finding the habeas corpus clause to be the basis upon which Congress could constitutionally authorize the courts to issue writs and thus, necessarily, the only way that authority could be withdrawn from the courts.

Nonsense. Marshall found that the basis for the court's power to issue the writ were the 14th Section of the judicial acts.