General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan and should the DoJ investigate the infamous 47 for violating the Logan Act?
They would fundraise the hell out of it and bluster how Obama is a tyrant...
But when push comes to shove and once they have to appear in court...
Once they have to explain why they sent a diplomatic note to the iranian government, why they tried to influence ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran, why they did so in their official capacities as members of the legislative branch (using their titles and the official letterhead) ...
For serious? I wouldn't give a fuck about how the GOP reacts:
1. The GOP is already bought and paid for by big donors. It won't have an effect on overall fundraising.
2. Public opinion is against them.
3. It would be really fun to watch Fox News trying to spin this how this law doesn't count when lawless Obama tries to enforce it.
C_U_L8R
(45,012 posts)But either way this is turning into
a PR disaster for the Republicans.
They really are losers, aren't they?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)Rich people can break any laws they want.
Justice? HA
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)It would change the political narrative away from Republican sabotage of the Presidency and the executive's ability to represent U.S. interests in the world, to one in which Democrats would be accused of over reach and use of power for partisan ends. That is how it would be perceived whether or not it is fair to see it that way. It would also over shadow the effort to achieve an acceptable resolution of the nuclear issue with Iran without resort to war, which would really be taking our eye off the ball. And no way, in the real world, would our government and courts convict half of the Senate of a crime unless we were headed for a Civil War.
But it serves a useful purpose, I believe, for those of us outside of government to loudly point out how treacherous those Republicans are behaving.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Smearing the Republicans over it, but without wading into the legal swamp.
"Are they traitors? Who knows? We are just asking questions!!!"
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
Senator McGoverns report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkmans contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiants desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[6]
These were senators, and in fact the information they gave was correct. The Constitution splits treaty powers - Article 2, Section 2 Presidential:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
The laws under which the President imposes sanctions are all passed by Congress. The Logan Act really doesn't pertain here.
Article 1, Section 8 clearly allocates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations:
...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
For example, the OFAC sanctions against Iran have as their legal authority a law passed by Congress, as this brochure explains:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf
Thus, Congress passes the ability now to overrule the president on this issue, and therefore I think these claims are nonsensical.