Yup, and I'm doing so by providing overwhelming historical evidence that the act of that historical person was unconstitutional.
That was never shown at the time, as the issue never came before the Supreme Court, and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Eclipsed is a poor word. His opinion is like the sun to your 20 watt bulb.
Walt
Yes it was. Taney quoted a large ammount of it in his widely circulated Ex Parte Merryman ruling.
as the issue never came before the Supreme Court
That was The Lincoln's obligation, and he failed to do so.
and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
No, not really. He's asserted without evidence and on his own authority that the issue has never been decided. By comparison, the overwhelming bulk of historical records indicate that it was decided without issue from day one when the clause was inserted into the Constitution. Rehnquist can argue for his position all he wants as can you, but no ammount of argument will change the fact that Madison's records show it was indisputably intended for the legislature.