Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout - where Marshall stated that the suspension of the writ could only be performed by Congress was in 1807, well after the amended Militia Act of 1795. So now you are arguing that a Supreme Court decision is overturned by the actions of a President?
For some reason -- perhaps you can suggest a hypothesis, the current Chief Justice doesn't seem to give much credence to Bollman and Swartout.
"The question of whether only Congress may suspend it [the Writ] has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."
--Remarks of Supreme Court Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist
Director's Forum, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
November 17, 1999
Why do you think the Chief Justice apparently disagrees with you?
Walt
One reason could be he never read Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout. But I would tend to doubt that. Evidently he does not hold to the separation of powers theory held by Chief Justice Taney, Justices Catron, Clifford concurring in the dissenting opinion of Justice Nelson in The Prizes Cases.
But I guess that every justice that has ever served has agreed with every decision, and that dissenting opinions never occur. They didn't in Bollman (albeit a 4-0 decision by Marshall, Washington, Johnson and Livingston - Cushing & Chase were ill).