General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is why it is impossible to charge the Republicans with treason....
That letter from the Arkansas Republican to the ayatollahs and other Iranian officials, critics say, is a violation of the 1799 Logan Act, which says starkly:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
“This [letter] seems squarely to satisfy the elements of the law,” Temple University law professor Peter Spiro declared, suggesting a crime has occurred here.
But hold on.
In the 215-plus years the Logan Act has been on the books, there’s only been one indictment against someone for breaking the law, in 1803, and the case fell apart before trial.
And what the GOP senators are doing here, while rare, is hardly unprecedented.
For instance, in 1920, 88 members of the House of Representatives sent a cable to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and the British Parliament to protest against Britain’s treatment of Irish prisoners being held without arraignment or trial. This was directly contrary to the policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who sought closer relations with Great Britain at the time, and who did not support Ireland’s push for independence.
In 1927, the Senate’s anti-imperialist “peace progressives,” led by Sen. William Borah, R-Idaho), wrote directly to the Mexican president in an effort to renegotiate oil leases granted to U.S. oil companies under an agreement reached by President Coolidge.
In 1975, Sens. John Sparkman, D-Ala., and George McGovern, D-S.D., traveled to Cuba to negotiate directly with Fidel Castro about easing relations.
And the practice goes all the way back to the beginning of the country, when the House (dominated by fiery pro-French Jeffersonians) voted a resolution of approval of the radical French constitution of 1792, despite President George Washington’s desperate efforts to keep his fledgling country neutral in the great European wars that were unfolding.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-gop-senators-broke-law-iran-letter/story?id=29528727
Did the Republicans violate the letter of the law? Perhaps. But this law is too old and appears to be completely unenforceable. And for practically the entire history of the United States, the law has been completely ignored by congress and the president numerous times with no repercussions.
Does that make it right what the Republicans did? No. But this talk of "treason" is ridiculous. There has always been a bit of a turf battle between congress and the executive when it comes to foreign relations. For most of our history, Congress had on tradition took a back seat to the President concerning such matters in order to show a unified front to the world despite internal political differences. But there have been instances where that tradition has been violated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)who claims himself to be the author.
Warpy
(111,300 posts)and a foreign power during tense treaty negotiations. While Congresspeople from both parties might have protested policy, interfering in negotiations hasn't been done until now.
This is a clear violation of the Logan Act.
While I doubt any of these turds will see a day in jail, it would be nice to fine them under that act, just to put it into the record that what they did overstepped the bounds and was dead wrong.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)agreement. The whole point was that the administration does not want to have to go to the Senate to ratify this agreement, which they would if it is a treaty.
So, is this a treaty that will require Senate ratification or not?
(I suppose that technically you can have a treaty that was signed by the President but NOT ratified by the Senate, which would not be legally binding on the US as a treaty).
Warpy
(111,300 posts)Face it, those 47 turds completely overstepped their boundaries and have violated the Logan act to the extent that something has to be done.
They've managed to foul everything up.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)of ratification.
If the treaty has no hope of ratification, then what have they fouled up?
If the agreement is NOT a treaty then they may have fouled an agreement up. But you say it is a treaty, so I am confused.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Definition of treason in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
And the Logan Act is a ridiculous law and should be repealed.
I hate what Republicans want to do in Iran, but it is nice to see Congress reclaiming a little of their lost powers.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I can vaguely remember that.
- It used to make me feel all warm and cozy inside......
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)If the Logan Act defines "treason", then these Republican senators have surely committed it, whether it is prosecuted or not.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)definition contained in the Logan Act in conflict with the US Constitutional definition would be invalid.
The Constitutional definition is :
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The founders were so worried about everything being called "treason" that they specifically defined it in the Constitution itself so no political majority can change the definition on their own. The Logan Act cannot redefine because the constitution is a legally superior law.
They violated the Logan Act...they did not commit treason.
Yes, legally there is a MASSIVE difference there.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)there was some squawking about her violating the Logan Act:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/06/can-pelosi-be-prosecuted-under-the-logan-act-for-meeting-with-assad/
But squawking is all it was, and that's all it is in the current case, too.
