That's nice and all, but it still says absolutely nothing about habeas corpus.
Chief Justice Marshall ruled in McCullough:
That's nice too, but Marshall also specifically ruled in Bollman that habeas corpus was a matter of the legislature, contradicting any of the implications otherwise you dishonestly purport to have existed.
President Lincoln had all the power and precedent he needed to suspend the Writ.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply false. The existing precedent on habeas corpus, Bollman, specifically said this was not so and that it was for the legislature to decide. The standing case brought in response to The Lincoln's actions, Merryman, affirmed Bollman. The Lincoln didn't like the precedent and the ruling against him so he unconstitutionally ignored it without an appeal.
To say that it is nowhere "even remotely" extant, is simply partisanship
No Walt. It's a matter of constitutional fact. Only by torturing the plain text meaning of the document and willfully ignoring precedents that directly say you are wrong are you able to suggest anything otherwise.
Mine are well grounded in the words of the people who actually participated in these events.
Really, cause the sure don't announce themselves. I guess the guy who wrote your "moderated newsgroup" clipping must be very very very old! In the meantime, I will happily point out that your attention has been directed to two individuals who actually did live in the 19th century and who actually ruled on the matter in a way DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of the version you claim, John Marshall and Roger Taney. It has also been noted that Taney's ruling was the ONLY court ruling at the time to take up the question in direct response to The Lincoln's action itself, and it ruled against him.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply false.
That is your opinion, which is at odds with that of the current Chief Justice. Your whole position on this is nothing but a snooze.
Walt