Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 08:27 AM Mar 2015

Can 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.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can and should the DoJ investigate the infamous 47 for violating the Logan Act? (Original Post) DetlefK Mar 2015 OP
Why wouldn't you? C_U_L8R Mar 2015 #1
our doj only goes after whistleblowers Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #2
The GOP will continue to spiral into obsolescence without any other 'help'. Please proceed, GOP. randome Mar 2015 #3
Can they? yes...WILL they? no DiverDave Mar 2015 #4
Sadly, I have to agree with you. nt City Lights Mar 2015 #6
The only thing more impotent than a threat unmade is a threat unkept. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #5
No. It would backfire the way Clinton's impeachment did for Republicans Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #7
Sounds like a plan. DetlefK Mar 2015 #8
I don't think it can, and I don't think it should. Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #9

C_U_L8R

(45,012 posts)
1. Why wouldn't you?
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:03 AM
Mar 2015

But either way this is turning into
a PR disaster for the Republicans.

They really are losers, aren't they?

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
3. The GOP will continue to spiral into obsolescence without any other 'help'. Please proceed, GOP.
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:27 AM
Mar 2015

[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]

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
7. No. It would backfire the way Clinton's impeachment did for Republicans
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:44 AM
Mar 2015

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)
8. Sounds like a plan.
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:53 AM
Mar 2015

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)
9. I don't think it can, and I don't think it should.
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:54 AM
Mar 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

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 McGovern’s 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 Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s 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
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


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 regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
...
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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can and should the DoJ in...