Is this an offense under the Logan Act? GOP's message to Iran.

originally posted by: intrepid

This is all assuming that the GOP will win the WH and hold the House. That isn't a given. I can only think what this says to the world. Unity isn't a word I'd use.

They do not need to win the White House to ratify treaties, that is the Senates job.

Um.....no.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Lots of partisan crap with this. Check out how the left wing is screaming that the GOP violated the Logan Act, but then when there are questions about those on the left doing the same kind of thing, they say it's just fine.

I postulated this, not the liberal media. Trust me, I'm no media fan.

The GOP is hoping that Iran will pull out of negotiations with the US and that would "justify" an Israeli strike against Iran...

This is not "brave". This is very stupid and dangerous.

I want to see all 47 of them behind bars ASAP.

👣

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I disagree. The pertinent portion is this:

They said they would consider any deal merely "an executive agreement" if it is not approved by Congress.

We know that they will not approve it so I do not think stating their often-mentioned intentions is 'negotiations'.

If the President signs a treaty and the Senate does not ratify it the treaty is worthless. The Senate has stated, and I guess we need to take them at face value, that they will not ratify an Iran deal they do not like.

a reply to: Sremmos80

"some sort of peace"?? From what I gather, this deal Obama wants only prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons "anytime soon"....his words, not mine. Our representatives have serious concerns over this deal and I'm sure they know the ramifications of communicating this to Iran. As others have said, a bad deal is not better than no deal.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Nothing in [the law], 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.

Which is what I stated earlier, all of those jackwads are sadly part of the government.

originally posted by: intrepid
I postulated this, not the liberal media. Trust me, I'm no media fan.

Not you. I posted information from the media. THAT is what I was talking about when I said partisan crap. Each side points at the other and screams 'violation', but then when their own guys do the same thing they think it's just fine.

originally posted by: intrepid
One could argue the term "unauthorized citizens". However has a Congress ever gone to the length this one has in opposing a sitting president in matters of foreign affairs?

Has a sitting president ever shown so much contempt towards Congress and gone to such great lengths to bypass their position as the only American body which can ratify international treaties? I'd argue Obama has violated the Logan act, to be honest. The Treaty Clause of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the POTUS may only negotiate and agree to treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Last time I checked, Obama was far from holding a supermajority of approval in that body, making any attempts at negotiating treaties and any contracts he attempts to agree to null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Very well stated. I would also add that the American People put the Republicans back in power in BOTH the House and the Senate for the very purpose of putting the brakes on a president gone wild.

This is what happens when you usurp the house and senate with "a phone and a pen".

Making a deal that all could sign on to would require a real leader.

I'm surprised with the majority of senate turning their back on Obama he ha sent just walked out of office...

It's shenanigans to think this is what America has come to a bunch of adolescent children trying to be the leader...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The Treaty Clause of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the POTUS may only negotiate and agree to treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Last time I checked, Obama was far from holding a supermajority of approval in that body, making any attempts at negotiating treaties and any contracts he attempts to agree to null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.

Please don't invoke the Constitution there. The GOP is very well on it's way to unhinge that. Once any policy HAS to be an "executive order" because of partisan politics, and it's happened many times in the past, that's a fail in the "checks and balances". This isn't a "check". This is a political move to undermine the foreign policy of the country. This has almost nothing to do with the voter. It's about dick swinging.

originally posted by: intrepid

Once any policy HAS to be an "executive order" because of partisan politics, and it's happened many times in the past, that's a fail in the "checks and balances".

It is a 'fail' by the person invoking it. The Founders set up the checks and balances to be intentional roadblocks and prevent easy revision and require compromise. If there is no compromise there is gridlock.


And frankly, gridlock of the United States government is possibly the best thing that can happen sometimes.

a reply to: ATF1886

The GOP were expecting a usual "lame duck" prez in his lat 2 years. He is doing what he's always done. The opposite. I LOVE his cojones, if not his policies.

a reply to: FlyersFan

On Nancy Pelosi:

According to a 1975 State Department statement, which was noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the law], 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."

Source

There's nothing illegal about a Congress person, in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution speaking with foreign leaders. But for these 47 people to intervene in disputes, could very well be in violation of the Logan Act.

They aren't acting as Congress. They are 47 citizens.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here's the actual text:

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 section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects

Congress lacks the authority to negotiate treaties (or executive agreements) so members of Congress not otherwise authorized by the President would implicitly fall under the category of "without authority of the United States."

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And frankly, gridlock of the United States government is possibly the best thing that can happen sometimes.

THAT could be the mother of all truths.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which is what I stated earlier, all of those jackwads are sadly part of the government.

But they are not acting as the government. They are 47 people who wrote a letter. This was not an act of Congress.

originally posted by: intrepid
Please don't invoke the Constitution there. The GOP is very well on it's way to unhinge that. Once any policy HAS to be an "executive order" because of partisan politics, and it's happened many times in the past, that's a fail in the "checks and balances". This isn't a "check". This is a political move to undermine the foreign policy of the country. This has almost nothing to do with the voter. It's about dick swinging.

Huh? So because the GOP offers some token resistance to Obama before Boehner bends at the waist and gives him what he's demanding, and because Obama is abusing executive orders as well as flipping his finger at the federal courts who has deemed his executive actions to be Unconstitutional, it's the GOP who are "unhinging" the Constitution? *short* "Well you see officer, if those pesky lawmakers hadn't passed such a draconian 15 MPH speed limit in the school zone, I wouldn't have to break the law to make sure I'm on time every morning."

The "fail" in America's checks and balances currently is that the commander in chief refuses to be checked and has tipped over the balances. I'm not familliar with Canada, but the United States Constitution is our LAW. Furthermore, the POTUS swears to uphold that law even to the detriment of virtually everything else. If it's about d**k swinging, then I'd suggest the man put his d**k away and actually start being a president and upholding his oath of office... or end the madness and resign.