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)?
I have. Have you?
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?
On the contrary, the Supreme Court has ruled on free speech cases. I'm not aware of any troop quartering cases, but there may have been. But the Constitution explicitly states that troops cannot be quartered in private dwellings without permission. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus, and even the current Chief Justice has pointed out that the Court has never ruled definitively that he cannot.
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)?
Clear because you claim that they are? The clause in questions states that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it. Nowhere in that clause does it state that only an act of Congress can suspend it. So the question of whether or not the president can suspend it is unclear. That would make it a question for the Supreme Court to decide, not you. And the court never took the matter up.