Historians rank Trump worst president in history, Lincoln the best

Feb. 19 (UPI) -- A new survey of historians ranks Donald Trump the worst president in U.S. history.

Trump has touted his poll numbers against President Joe Biden ahead of a potential rematch in November. However, the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, conducted by Qualtrics, has Biden significantly ahead of the former president.

The survey was conducted online among more than 500 members of the American Political Science Association, an organization of professionals in the field. Respondents rated Biden at 62.66 on a scale of 100 for overall greatness, good for 14th out of 45 presidents.

Abraham Lincoln scored the highest rating at 93.87, followed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt at 90.83 and George Washington at 90.32

The Constitution’s Suspension Clause (the only place where habeas corpus is mentioned that I can see, and as a privilege rather than a right) does not specify that habeas corpus can only be suspended by Congress.

SCOTUS has ruled to that effect. Only the Congress can suspend it and only when the courts are not operating. Habeas Corpus is not a privilege.

Not to mention, Lincoln did indeed get Congressional approval in response to Fort Sumter, in special session.

Not until after he had started the war.

And the blockade of ports was not the first act of aggression in the war;

Correct. The invasion of South Carolina's sovereign territorial waters by federal warships was the first act of aggression.

not to mention there was the viewpoint that it was all still United States territory and not that of a foreign power.

Except every state is sovereign and nowhere agreed to surrender their sovereignty to the federal government. Since the states nowhere granted the federal government the right or power to prevent secession, then under the 9th and 10th amendment, that is a power reserved to the states. When the constitution was ratified, 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede. Every state understood itself to have that right.

You seem to also have forgotten that the 1807 Insurrection Act was also very much in force, as it is today; Trump invoked it in response to the riots that used George Floyd as their excuse.

There was no insurrection. Several states lawfully seceded. They did not seek to overthrow the authority of the federal government where it lawfully existed.

Again, I cited the attack on Fort Sumter. You ignored it completely. Please be more focused and less emotional.

I cited the invasion of South Carolina's territory. You failed to account for that act of aggression. Please education yourself.

SCOTUS has ruled to that effect. Only the Congress can suspend it and only when the courts are not operating. Habeas Corpus is not a privilege.

Eh??

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

That is the text of Article 1 section 9 clause 2 of the Constitution. Now do you believe in judicial nullification or something, like liberals might? We have a process for amending the Constitution, a document that you are displaying gross ignorance of with all due respect, and the SCOTUS is not involved in any way whatsoever. Nothing about Congress’ approval is in the Constitution at all.

And if habeas corpus is not a privilege (as the Constitution clearly says it is), is it a right, like the liberals have tried to assert on behalf of the terrorists (Islamic or otherwise)?

Not to mention, Lincoln did indeed get Congressional approval in response to Fort Sumter, in special session.
Not until after he had started the war.

You seem determined to be insulting by way of ignoring what I said. Twice you have been silent about what happened at Fort Sumter, which is argumentum ad lapidem (a logical fallacy; liberals are fond of using those).

Not to mention, how is it a war? Did Congress recognize any self-declared seceded state as a separate country from the USA, much less the self-declared CSA? More like a coup d’état. That gives the POTUS broad scope to act per the little-used 1807 Insurrection Act.

(E)very state is sovereign and nowhere agreed to surrender their sovereignty to the federal government. Since the states nowhere granted the federal government the right or power to prevent secession, then under the 9^th and 10^th amendment, that is a power reserved to the states. When the constitution was ratified, 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede. Every state understood itself to have that right. …

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

The CSA constitution says the exact same thing in its own Article 1, section 10, clause 1. So in the case of both these constitutions, secession is dimly viewed and is regarded as an act of rebellion against what the states agreed to. Now mind you, where the federal government instead breaks the laws, that gives the states the right to act since said federal government has been taken over by Constitution-hating rebels, the biggest example being what is happening at the southern border, where the federal government is plainly flouting the Guarantee Clause.

Guess which constitutions did/do explicitly state rights to “freely” secede? The constitution of the USSR, and the de jure constitution of the European Union (the treaties consist of the constitution thereof). Not so freely as in the case of “Brexit” of course.

I cited the invasion of South Carolina’s territory …

What invasion? Cite fact and not opinion, please. If Trump had acted in a more severe manner towards BLM in Minneapolis, that could have been regarded as “invasion of Minnesota’s territory” by liberals, correct? Think on the Guarantee Clause.

Now do you believe in judicial nullification or something, like liberals might? We have a process for amending the Constitution, a document that you are displaying gross ignorance of with all due respect, and the SCOTUS is not involved in any way whatsoever. Nothing about Congress’ approval is in the Constitution at all.

"Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus#:~:text=Only%20Congress%20has%20the%20power,authority%20to%20suspend%20the%20writ.

Not to mention, Lincoln did indeed get Congressional approval in response to Fort Sumter, in special session.

Not until after the fact. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled at the time in ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's suspension of Habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Subsequent SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that ruling.

Twice you have been silent about what happened at Fort Sumter, which is argumentum ad lapidem (a logical fallacy; liberals are fond of using those).

I addressed this right from the start. The Confederates fired to drive an invader away. Them firing was a RESPONSE to an act of war committed by the Lincoln administration - to wit, the armed invasion of their territory.

Not to mention, how is it a war? Did Congress recognize any self-declared seceded state as a separate country from the USA, much less the self-declared CSA? More like a coup d’état. That gives the POTUS broad scope to act per the little-used 1807 Insurrection Act.

There was certainly no coup. The Confederates never sought to depose Lincoln or the US Federal government nor did they seek to invade the territory of the Northern states or dictate to them how they should be governed. Why would any state need Congress to recognize them? They do not derive their sovereignty from Congress.

Regrettably, you are once more displaying ignorance of the Constitution. Article 1 section 10 clause 1 is explicit on what states had agreed not to do, so this is not covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. The CSA constitution says the exact same thing in its own Article 1, section 10, clause 1. So in the case of both these constitutions, secession is dimly viewed and is regarded as an act of rebellion against what the states agreed to.

No, I am afraid it is you who is ignorant as to what the Constitution says. Nowhere in that article does it say a state may not secede. The article only limits what a state may do while it is in the US. The Constitution is silent about secession. *IF* the power to unilaterally secede were not a power the states intended to reserve to themselves at the time that they ratified the Constitution, then why did 3 states pass these resolutions at the time of ratification?:

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."

Nobody at the time of ratification of the Constitution said that these provisos were in any way inconsistent with the Constitution or that their ratifications were rendered somehow defective due to the passage of these provisions. Nobody argued that the provisions were in any way invalid. It is clear that the Founding Fathers who had only 8 years earlier concluded the Treaty of Paris recognizing their hard won state sovereignty after seceding from the British Empire had no intention of surrendering their sovereignty to the newly created federal government and binding their states forever to it. As Madison himself said in the federalist papers, membership in the union was voluntary:

...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Federalist 39).' James Madison

You realize federal warships had violated South Carolina's territorial waters and that Lincoln had sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's territory again, right? I could list the warships, the weaponry and the size of the landing parties they could carry if you like. It does not matter what BS claims leftists would have made wrt President Trump. Minnesota had not seceded from the US. There could be no invasion of its territory by the federal government so long as it was in the US.

To: drib-tlf

“Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ.”

— www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus

Ah, argumentum ad verecundiam. So you are a liberal after all, citing the baseless opinion of a liberal university that has the temerity to lie after quoting the Constitutional clause that does not say that Congress alone holds that power. You yourself have not even quoted the Constitution even once, even after upbraiding me for seemingly (to you) having no knowledge of same.

~~Not until after the fact~~. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled at the time in ex parte Merryman that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Subsequent SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that ruling. …

You sure are a fan of kritocracy, aren’t you. Particularly when it has to do with false decisions that are as bad as Dred Scott v. Sandford or Roe v. Wade.

You presume that South Carolina did not violate the Constitution by breaking away from the USA for no legitimate reason and entering a confederacy as forbidden by Article 1 Section 10.
Therefore, the actions of Lincoln were that against an act of domestic violence and rebellion (forbidden by Article 3 Section 3 and defined as an act of treason there) at Fort Sumter, which you still refuse to even discuss (i.e. fulfilling his duty per the Guarantee Clause) and not an act against a sovereign state separate from the USA.

The Confederates fired to drive an invader away. Them firing was a RESPONSE to an act of war committed by the Lincoln administration — to wit, the armed invasion of their territory. …

Repeating a lie does not make it truth, sorry; even much more several lies.

And does time flow backwards for you? Lincoln sending militias to South Carolina was three days after the attack on Fort Sumter.

There was certainly no coup. The Confederates never sought to depose Lincoln or the US Federal government nor did they seek to invade the territory of the Northern states or dictate to them how they should be governed. Why would any state need Congress to recognize them? They do not derive their sovereignty from Congress.

Red herrings all, plus argumentum ad lapidem. Never mind the violation of the US Constitution by entering a confederation.

Fort Sumter, which you still refuse to address, was attacked for no reason other than there were US forces stationed there (not “Union” forces). That was an act of war by an illegal confederation.

… Nowhere in that article does it say a state may not secede. The article only limits what a state may do while it is in the US. The Constitution is silent about secession. IF the power to unilaterally secede were not a power the states intended to reserve to themselves at the time that they ratified the Constitution, then why did 3 states pass these resolutions at the time of ratification?

Ignoring Article 1 Section 10 again, I see. The Constitution is absolutely not silent on this matter.

You realize federal warships had violated South Carolina's territorial waters and that Lincoln had sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina’s territory again, right? I could list the warships, the weaponry and the size of the landing parties they could carry if you like. It does not matter what BS claims leftists would have made wrt President Trump. Minnesota had not seceded from the US. There could be no invasion of its territory by the federal government so long as it was in the US.

Repeating lies again. By entering a confederation, there was no sovereignty that SC could claim since it violated the very Constitution it agreed to abide by.

So we have several logical fallacies here, the most commonly-appearing one this time being “proof by repeated assertion”. But I guess it’s my fault, arguing with liberals . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.