[Non-Sequitur]

The Constitution puts limits on the federal government, to provide protection for the people and the states.

It also places many limits on the states.

Where does the line about habeus corpus fall? Gee...it's Article I...where things pertaining to the Legislative Branch are listed.

Look at Section 10, Clause 1 of Article I:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

All restrictions on the states. Congress isn't even mentioned. Look at Section 8. It clearly states that Congress shall have the power, a clause missing in Section 9. Now look at the clause in question, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Nowhere does it say that the writ can only be suspended through legislation. Nowwhere does it say that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus.

Obviously, because it's quite clearly listed with the Congressional powers (Article I), there's no need to "rule" on it.

Quite the contrary, only the Supreme Court can rule if Lincoln's actions were Constitutional. Not you, not me.

[Gondring]

More sophistry. With the way you weave such tangled webs, I'm sure you understand the differnce between enumeration of powers (of Congress) and restrictions on powers (of states). I suppose you're a wonderful illustration of why some didn't want a Bill of Rights--they felt that people would use it to restrict rights that weren't clearly mentioned.

Read the tenth Amendment, though.

...only the Supreme Court can rule if Lincoln's actions were Constitutional. Not you, not me.

So I suppose that a total ban on speech, private-home quartering of air force personnel (since they aren't explicitly mentioned) or even army personnel, etc., are "Constitutional" to you, since the Supreme Court hasn't made rulings on them?

Fine, define it that way if you want, but you look foolish and/or disingenuous. What term do you want to use for those things that are obviously clear in the Constitution and don't require any SCOTUS decision to understand (e.g., suspension of habeus corpus is a Congressional power)?