Assumming that you're still on the subject of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and it's your position that the writ could only be suspended by an act of Congress, shouldn't we consider the practicalities?
You claim that Lincoln acted as a tyrant. I could see some reasoning for that position if he had made a sweeping denial which affected the entire population, which could be the anticipated outcome if the writ was denied by an act of Congress.
Lincoln's denial of writs was directed at a small and specific population during a time of rebellion. Perhaps this is why his action has never received a final legal condemnation?
The suspension of the privilege of the writ was not confined to any small population, and there was no rebellion. Lincoln's suspension of the privilege remained in effect even after his death and it applied to every state in the union. Congress had merely rubberstamped his suspension. His actions did receive wide condemnation in the judiciary. If you don't take the rebuke to him by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as 'final condemnation' then I suppose you are justified in thinking he was right. Ex Parte Merryman was a ruling issued by the Chief Justice, Roger Taney from his Circuit bench and was a scathing rebuke of Lincoln. That decision stood and has never been challenged in any court.
The fact that revisionist historians have succeeded in glossing over those condemnations and every other criticism of Lincoln to be found in the media of his time doesn't mean that his actions haven't been condemned.
Are you saying that Congress should suspend the privilege now? There's no reason for that, IMO.