No, he did not.
No. Something is unconstitutional because it violates part of the constitution. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did just that.
And a constiutional violation does not occur just because you say it does. Or when an Circuit Court judge says it does. It occurs when a majority of the Supreme Court justices agrees that it has occured.
The suspension applied only to federal courts and thus was limited.
By that definition then so was Lincoln's.
Yes he did.
And a constiutional violation does not occur just because you say it does.
Strictly speaking, a constitutional violation is not contingent upon the word of any one person or body of persons. It happens independent of what anyone says and even independent of whether or not anybody notices. It is the job of judges to take notice of the more egregious violations and act to correct them. Sometimes they are successful in this. Sometimes they are not.
It occurs when a majority of the Supreme Court justices agrees that it has occured.
No it doesn't. The court can only rule on a constitutional violation that has already occurred, hopefully with a mind to correcting that violation.
By that definition then so was Lincoln's.
Not really. Lincoln ran right over the state courts where they conflicted wiht him just like he ran over state legislatures and even entire state governments (i.e. Missouri). The Confederate state courts, by contrast, remained open and issued writs of habeas corpus throughout the war.