...as opposed to your offering of one man who says its possible for the president to suspend habeas corpus. And don't complain about it - YOU made this into a silly game of comparing authorities. I am simply noting that my authorities are stronger than your lone authority.
Add all seven opinions together and you come up with squat because none of us on our own have the power to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Only the Supreme Court has the power to decide that and only if a majority of the justices agree.
Fair enough, in which case the Supreme Court DID exactly that in 1807. The statement of John Marshall that I cite comes out of his majority ruling of Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout. It's the standing precedent on which Taney based his ruling in Merryman and to this date has not been overturned.
The fact still remains that the matter of whether or not the president can suspend habeas corpus has never been considered by the entire court
BZZZT! WRONG! The Court ruled on it in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout.
You can quote Bollman and Swarthout until the cows come home but the suspension of habeas corpus was not part of the case before the court and Chief Justice Marshall's comments on that comprise an obiter dictum and are not binding authority.
Not so. The Bollman case made a decision on the court's power to grant a writ of habeas corpus and where that power derived from. Marshall's comments that I cited earlier were the point on which the final question of the ruling was answered. The section I quoted reads in full:
"But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws. The motion, therefore, must be granted."