Yes it has, Walt. It's called Ex Parte Merryman.
Tell that to the Chief Justice.
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ. It only dictates what Congress may or may not do.
Walt
Better yet. I'll tell it to two Chief Justices who agree completely with it - Marshall and Taney. Two beats one, Walt.
I'll also tell it to two more Justices who agree with it - Curtis and Story. That makes four, and four also beats one. Live with it.
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ.
To the contrary, Walt. It is a logically inescapable legal situation that he may not act in to suspend the writ. This is proven in the following terms:
P1. The writ may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause.
P2. Article I, Section 9's clause is vested in the legislature as stated by the Constitution.
Premise 2 necessarily precludes anybody but Congress from acting on Article I, Section 9's clause. Premise 1 necessarily precludes habeas corpus from being suspended by any means other than Article I, Section 9. Even your false god admitted that much.
If habeas corpus may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause, and Article I, Section 9's clause may only be invoked by the legislature, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the president to legally or constitutionally suspend habeas corpus.