“It is silent on who may suspend it should such a suspension become necessary. You will note that unlike Section 8, Section 9 does not begin with the words ‘Congress shall have the power to. So your claim that Lincoln usurped Congressional power and imposed a tyranny is incorrect.’”
That is specious. It does not start with “Congress shall have the power to...” for the very specific reason that, unlike the enumerated powers of Section 8, Section 9 primarily deals with limitations on Congress’ power. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly state who has the power to suspend habeas corpus, though it clearly implies that someone does. If it lies with the executive, why did they put the clause in Article One? If the President and Congress share the power, why isn’t it mentioned in Article Two?
There are practical considerations here. The Constitution holds that suspension is valid only in cases of emergency, and it’s more than likely that Congress won’t be able to act fast enough in the event of an emergency. That’s when presidents shine. So Congress need not necessarily give prior consent. But it seems to me that they must have ultimate consent. Otherwise, why not include it among the president’s powers?
It is granted to Congress by the power to create courts. See post 72 above. You were correct. It is exclusively a power of the Congress.