Republicans

[Timsup2nothin]

That Logan Act looks blatantly unconstitutional to me.

Like the Alien and Seduction Acts which were passed around the same time, it is as clearly a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and of the press. Such rights are not voided because the speech is delivered to an agent of a foreign government. Any private individual retains the right to do that, whether in elected office or otherwise.

(In general, I am disinclined to trust any legislation coming from the Federalists during the Adams Administration.)

Dr George Logan seems like a good guy whose semi-negotiations were beneficial and should never have resulted in such an act being passed.

Justice Sutherland and Marshall's statements in no way follow from the plain text of the Constitution.

The Constitution only grants the President the right to make treaties "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." It never grants him any authority to make executive agreements without Senatorial oversight.


The power of the presidency has been allowed to expand ridiculously far beyond what the founders intended, which was already further than I would consider prudent to invest in one man. I have no problem reining it in. We should not allow precedents that expand the power of government to stand.

(Hopefully this letter will help prevent the passage of the upcoming Orwellianly named "Free Trade Agreements" too. True free trade would require free movement of workers, and would not involve extending government enforced monopolies under the name of "intellectual property.")


If we assume for the same of argument that the Logan act is not Unconstitutional and could be invoked, then the Senators would still be protected from arrest at least in the short term due to Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."



I don't see what is wrong with bipartisan efforts being harder to achieve. When the two dominant parties both agree on a policy, it tends to be a very bad policy. Bipartisanship usually means that dissent is suppressed rather than given due consideration. It often means serving the interests of establishment elites while disregarding what is good for almost everyone else. Bipartisan bills tend to be less popular among the general populace than the bills on which the two parties most strongly disagree. Politicians typically aim at bipartisanship due to cowardice, due to a desire for political cover in future elections in case the policy winds up being unpopular.

A letter sent to a foreign government is not "speech or debate within" the Senate.

 

[JollyRoger]

To the contrary, it was one of the better better political moves of the last year, either party.

J

Then why are so many of the signatories distancing themselves from it or making excuses?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Like the Alien and Seduction Acts[...]

That's an awesome typo.

 

[Darkflight]

I do not know if it's sad or funny that the most sane thing in that story is coming from Irans foreign minister.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Well, they did pretty much commit treason.

Questioning Obama's patriotism is totally out of bounds.
But calling 47 Republican senators traitors is ok.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9
280,000 signatures and counting.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Questioning Obama's patriotism is totally out of bounds.
But calling 47 Republican senators traitors is ok.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9
280,000 signatures and counting.

Well, when they clearly break a law calling them criminals is only to be expected, isn't it?

Thanks for the link by the way!

 

[classical_hero]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/top-5-times-the-dems-sabotaged-republican-foreign-policy/

Not that hypocrisy is thy name.

In 2008, nuclear talks between Iran and a seven nation coalition headed by the United States collapsed. The United States had even sent a diplomat to Tehran to deal with the issue personally; but Iran decided to hold firm against international demands that they stop enriching uranium under a “freeze-for-freeze” plan.

From Power Line Blog:

The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Active sabotage of a seven-nation coalition working to secure a nuclear deal with Iran? No big deal, right? This one truly takes the cake because it features a president-elect stepping into the shoes of a sitting president and brokering half of a future deal with a hostile power.

The point here isn’t that Democrats criticized Republican-driven foreign policy; the point is that the Democrats actively reached out to foreign governments in an attempt to undercut what the majority party was trying to do.

You can agree or disagree with what Cotton and the other Republicans did—I know conservatives on both sides of the issue having legitimate discussions over it—but what will not stand is the faux panic of an entire caucus of Democrats still sore from election night.

 

[BvBPL]

I'm not a foreign policy expert, but sending a letter to a foreign government saying that any deal between the US and that government is the equivalent of a handshake agreement, seems like it intends to influence the conduct of said government.

but the senate has authority that places it outside of the act,

 

[Timsup2nothin]

but the senate has authority that places it outside of the act,

They do? I don't see where.

 

[Gucumatz]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/top-5-times-the-dems-sabotaged-republican-foreign-policy/

Not that hypocrisy is thy name.

Historically other president to-bes/front runners to be have done the same, which doesn't excuse the act of course and shouldnt be done. LBJ privately blamed the failure of getting out of Vietnam during his term to back-channelling from Nixon and the Republicans who were making promises to Ho Chi Minh and his reps of what would be a change in direction in negotiations. The documents about Nixon's actions are still under lock in the LBJ library, but were expressedly left sealed by LBJ to protect the office and authority of the presidency

Its one thing to back-channel and another to do something so publicly against the executive. Frankly it seems like a terribly tacky and listless attempt by Republican senators to score points against the President, which clearly backfired.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A letter sent to a foreign government is not "speech or debate within" the Senate.

Nor are they "in attendance at their House of Congress"... This clause only protects them from arrest while they are at work in the Halls of Congress, and/or on their way to and from work in the Halls of Congress. You can go arrest them at their home and this clause doesn't protect them.

Also, violation of the Logan Act is a felony so they technically could be dragged right off the Senate floor by the DOJ if the President really wanted to prosecute them. But as I said before, he won't. There is no political benefit. Democratic party voters don't tend to reward partisan hackery.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/top-5-times-the-dems-sabotaged-republican-foreign-policy/

Not that hypocrisy is thy name.

The claim was disturbing enough for me to investigate. Here is what I found.

1. The link goes to a hard right-wing site. The artcles appear to be mostly right-wing propaganda. I'm gonna' ad-hominem a little bit and point out that the site also contains ads to improve vision by clipping closepins to your eyelids, and dissolve body fat with salt. There's also an ad that claims Prez Obama will not finish his 2nd term. So consider the source.

2. I checked the link to the supposed source of the "report" and it took me to a "Pajamas Media" website, another right wing propaganda site. Anyway the supposed source is a guy who claims he talked to an Ambassador who was a "secret backchannel." Pajamas media claims the guy (not the Ambassador, but the guy who supposedly talked to the Ambassador) was interviewed by Mark Levin (who Sean Hannity affectionately refers to as "The Godfather" of Conservative talk radio). So more right-wing opinioneers/entertainers, rather than actual journalists.

3. The purported "backchannel," Ambassabor Warren G. Miller has no listed connection to Prez Obama either on his Wikipedia page or the "Sourcewatch" page that the Pajama media site links to.

So I'm calling BS on this so-called "report" of supposed pre-election backchanneling by the President.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obama was too busy forging his birth certificate to have any time for back channeling.

 

[BvBPL]

They do? I don't see where.

What makes you think a senator wouldn't have authorization?

 

[Camikaze]

Sometimes people ask why foreigners care so much about US politics, or seem to complain about it so much. And this is a good example of why. Because the GOP want to score some cheap political points, they're willing to try torpedoing a deal that would make the world safer (and probably will if whenever they gain the power to do so). It'd be nice if the craziness of US politics could just be a curiosity.

 

[KMRblue1027]

What makes you think a senator wouldn't have authorization?

I don't see why they would, the Senate is not supposed to directly involve themselves in international diplomacy, only ratify treaties. This may not be the case constitutionally, someone more versed in that would be able to answer that, but as far as tradition is concerned they certainly do not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What makes you think a senator wouldn't have authorization?

Because the law is very clearly stated and the Senate is not above the law. Negotiation with foreign powers is done by the executive with the senate in the advise and consent role. Citizens, including senators, do not negotiate independently on behalf of the United States.

 

[BvBPL]

Negotiation with foreign powers is done by the executive with the senate in the advise and consent role.

So they do have authorization to advise. So it's a non-issue because the Senate falls outside of the statute.

The Senate can amend treaties with riders, understandings, and the like. It can abrogate its responsibility to approve treaties to the President. The legislature has a long established role in international affairs.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So they do have authorization to advise. So it's a non-issue because the Senate falls outside of the statute.

The Senate can amend treaties with riders, understandings, and the like. It can abrogate its responsibility to approve treaties to the President. The legislature has a long established role in international affairs.

Yes they do...and that role does not include communication with foreign governments regarding matters of policy...which is directly prohibited by a law that makes no stipulation that they are exempt. Their authorization to advise means they advise our executive, not Iran's.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess the major question is whether the letter contained true information, or whether it would have deceived the Iranian if read 'as intended'

 

[BvBPL]

Yes they do...and that role does not include communication with foreign governments regarding matters of policy.

Yes, it does. Legislators communicate with other governments on a regular basis about policy matters and make foreign policy at odds with the goals of the executive.