Unfortunately for you, Chief Justice Rehnquist's comments are not shrouded in a decision, and are only his personal opinion. And if Rehnquist actually believes that statement, then I would have to change my opnion of him and his knowledge of the Constitution.
So, where were we? You had stated that "there is nothing in the Constitution or in case law to keep the president from suspending the Writ." You posted the allegations and personal sentiment, I posted statements from at least three decisions, commonly known as facts. Even Justice Marshall disagrees with you.
Then enlighten us, please. When was the question of the legality of Lincoln's actions authoritatively answered?
You won't be offended if I defer to his personal opinion instead of yours.
'Shrouded' is certainly the word for what Taney wrote. That was not a decision of the court either.
Now, we -know- that the Taney court ruled in the 1862 "Prize Cases" -unanimously- that putting down the rebellion of the "so-called seceded states" (to use -their- phrase) was a legitimate function of the government.
Do you support what Taney did there--deny the legitimacy of secession?
Again, I don't write this for your benefit, but for the lurkers; no one who fairly examines the record will adopt your position.
Walt