I am entirely serious. In the first place dump Hamadi v Rumsfeld. Decisions 150 years later have no bearing on the Constitutionality of Lincoln's actions. No for the Bollman decision to be a legal precedent you would have to answer the question of who suspended habeas corpus in that case, Congress or the President?
In Taney’s opinion in Ex Parte Merryman, here’s his response to your statement about Article I...
And as a result we can hazard a good guess on how Taney would have voted had the matter ever appeared before the entire court. But Taney wasn't the entire court, he was one of 8. It takes the entire court to decide on the Constitutionality, not a single justice.
Besides Taney’s opinion, this issue was also before the Marshall court in Ex Parte Bollman...
But it was not before the Court in the Bollman decision. Habeas Corpus had not been suspend at all, not by the President and not by Congress. Since it had not been suspended then the question of who may suspend it was not before the court at the time. Chief Justice Marshall's comments form an obiter dictum and not a binding decision.
So not only do you think the President can suspend habeas corpus, you don’t think he’s obligated to follow the rulings of a federal court?
Fact of the matter is that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was before Taney when he rode circuit. The opinion of the court was that Lincoln’s actions were plainly and certainly unconstitutional.
Even if you think Marshall’s plain statement of the law wasn’t binding, the issue was decided by a sitting federal court and Lincoln ignored it. He had no respect whatsoever for Rule of Law. He was, in fact, a tyrant.