Jaffa contends that where the suspension clause is located is not nearly as important as why it is in the document at all.
Yes it does. Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
So tell me, Dan, exactly what is so difficult to understand about the phrase "SHALL BE VESTED IN A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES"?
And Jaffa, as usual, is full of it. Not only does he neglect the FUNDAMENTAL importance of its placement, to wit a compliance with the English tradition articulated by Blackstone in order that there may be a check upon the power of the executive by the legislature, but he also gets the purpose of it being there BACKWARDS. Any strict constructionist reading (which IMVHO is the ONLY intellectually valid way to read that document) of the constitution necessarily interprets its clauses in the way that is most conducive to liberty, thus we find, in full keeping with the intent of the founders, that the habeas corpus clause was placed there to PROTECT the sanctity of the Great Writ in all but the most extreme circumstances - NOT as Jaffa claims to provide a convenient means for the executive to come along and rape it. Justice O'Connor was absolutely correct in Hamdi when she stated that a disregard of the writ by the executive would serve to turn the entire system of checks and balances on its head, and Scalia was absolutely correct when he took this notion to an even further absolute, invoking it as an injunction against the court itself as well as the legislature.
The suspension power is given in the constitution to Congress for the very purpose of controlling abuse of it. The rationale, in its purest form, rests upon the notion that if a call to suspend the writ cannot even meet the test of obtaining congressional approval then that call itself is of suspect merit. For Harry Jaffa to assert otherwise is thus nothing short of an embrace of despotism, which seems to be what Jaffa is all about these days.
Its location in Section I is specification enough, in the middle of a list of things that the Congress shall not do.
You make the textual case because of its location in the final version of the document.
Yes, that's quite correct.
Jaffa contends that where the suspension clause is located is not nearly as important as why it is in the document at all.
So what? I'm not going to let Harry Jaffa lawyer-talk me. And his suggestion fails the test of common sense: just because it's important that taxes get collected, doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can usurp the power to collect them. Jaffa's being disingenuous -- he just wants to exonerate his boyhood hero from an accusation (true and good) of wrongdoing with respect to habeas corpus.