Been surfing the web again? Good, shows initiative.
All The Founders Constitution does, as near as I can tell from the on-line version, is post the Marshall decision under the heading Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. And I'll agree, as I've said all along, that the Chief Justice clearly states his belief that only the legislature can suspend habeas corpus. There it is, clear as day. No doubt at all about that.
But that wasn't my question. I have not doubted that the Chief Justice said that. I have questioned all along your claim that the remarks were not made in dictum and that they constitute a decision on the constitutionality of Lincoln's actions, and you claim that you are right and Chief Justice Rehnquist is wrong. In fact, the reverse is true. Who may suspend habeas corpus has never been definitively answered. The Chief Justice is right and you are wrong.
I'll post a couple of links for you. The first is the definition of Obiter Dictum since you don't seem to understand what it is. The second is a series of links which refer to the Chief Justice's comments and clearly identify them as being made in dictum:
Law vs.Order, or Habeas vs. Hobbs
Case law, footnote 1695
Treason and the Constitution
Finally, here is a great article by Eric Freedman called Just Because John Marshall Said It Doesn't Make It So . You need Adobe Acrobat for it and while Mr. Freedman isn't writing on the suspension of habeas corpus he does not that the Chief Justices remarks were made in dictum.
I'll conclude by repeating that I personally don't believe that President Lincoln's action on habeas corpus were Constitutional. I agree with Chief Justice Marshall and I believe that had the matter been taken to the full court then the Supreme Court would have ruled against him. But my opinon and your opinion and even Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Bollman do not constitute a definitive decision on whether Lincoln's actions were legal.