NationStates Jolt Archive

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

Couldn't Pelosi give herself and others the authority of the US?

And wouldn't it be only fair to check if any of the politicians who have ever spoken to foreign governemnts had the proper authority, rather than just Pelosi and the others?

Couldn't Pelosi give herself and others the authority of the US?

And wouldn't it be only fair to check if any of the politicians who have ever spoken to foreign governemnts had the proper authority, rather than just Pelosi and the others?

It's the Executive Branch that gets to do foreign policy negotiations.

Sure, she could have asked for permission (as could the Republicans in question).

But they didn't.

It's the Executive Branch that gets to do foreign policy negotiations.

Sure, she could have asked for permission (as could the Republicans in question).

But they didn't.

How do you know they didn't?

How do you know she didn't?

Perhaps you should check Bush's comments about her visit. He didn't want her to go.

Perhaps you should check Bush's comments about her visit. He didn't want her to go.

*notes a lack of linkage to said comments*

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

Because heaven forbid we actually talk to people...that could mean that a reasonable compromise might be reached.

Bush's doctrine of "no talking" hasn't done shit...if he doesn't like that others are picking up the slack, then he should have been a better president.

It's stupid. She's not in a position to promise anything.

So what? You think Assad doesn't know that??

He didn't have to host any such meeting, but he did. What does that say to you?

Because heaven forbid we actually talk to people...that could mean that a reasonable compromise might be reached.

Bush's doctrine of "no talking" hasn't done shit...if he doesn't like that others are picking up the slack, then he should have been a better president.

It's stupid. She's not in a position to promise anything.

*notes a lack of linkage to said comments*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003649127_webpelosi03.html

"A lot of people have gone to see President Assad....and yet we haven't seen action. He hasn't responded," Bush told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference.

He said Assad had not reined in violent elements of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as requested by the international community and had acted to destabilize the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

"Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive," Bush said.

Because heaven forbid we actually talk to people...that could mean that a reasonable compromise might be reached.

Bush's doctrine of "no talking" hasn't done shit...if he doesn't like that others are picking up the slack, then he should have been a better president.

The international community hasn't done shit talking to Syria all this time.

Any movement on Syria's support of Hamas and Hezbollah? Fuck no.

The international community hasn't done shit talking to Syria all this time.

Any movement on Syria's support of Hamas and Hezbollah? Fuck no.

So not talking isn't working...so let's keep doing it?

That's been working really well for us...(Iran and NK come to mind).

So not talking isn't working...so let's keep doing it?

That's been working really well for us...(Iran and NK come to mind).

My point is that the international community HAS BEEN TALKING ALL THIS TIME AND IT HASN'T DONE JACK SHIT TO MOVE SYRIA'S POSITION ON:

1. ARMED SUPPORT FOR HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH
2. THE DESIRE TO DESTROY ISRAEL

CAN'T YOU READ?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003649127_webpelosi03.html

Criticising=/=not authorising.

My point is that the international community HAS BEEN TALKING ALL THIS TIME AND IT HASN'T DONE JACK SHIT TO MOVE SYRIA'S POSITION ON:

1. ARMED SUPPORT FOR HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH
2. THE DESIRE TO DESTROY ISRAEL

CAN'T YOU READ?
So what? You want America to invade another sovereign nation?

My point is that the international community HAS BEEN TALKING ALL THIS TIME AND IT HASN'T DONE JACK SHIT TO MOVE SYRIA'S POSITION ON:

1. ARMED SUPPORT FOR HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH
2. THE DESIRE TO DESTROY ISRAEL

CAN'T YOU READ?

What part of the international community has done the talking, pray tell?

Not the US and not the EU...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6449133.stm
Javier Solana met the foreign minister, the vice president and later spent one hour with President Bashar al-Assad.

It was their first meeting since the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri two years ago, which prompted the EU to suspend contacts with Syria.

...but?

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

If its enforced against them, will it be enforced against AIPAC?

Will it be enforced against the variour members of PNAC who wrote a briefing for the Israeli Government on how best to deal with the Bush administration?

Fair is fair after all....

*points out that the thread has gone off topic in less than one page*

Oh so the Logan Act doesn't involve having a crystal embedded in your palm or Jenny Agutter.

The unanswered question is: Why should it be?

*points out that the thread has gone off topic in less than one page*

So it is a good thread ;)

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

...

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.All Pelosi and co have to do is prove that they were in Syria in their official capacity as representatives of the US government. Doesn't matter if Bush think's it is undermining US foreign policy, just so long as they weren't there as private citizens.

I think Pelosi could easily do that. In which case she can't be prosecuted under this law.

Oh dear, it seems I am in violation. Whatever shall I do. :rolleyes:

Scraping the bottom the barrel aren't we?

Oh so the Logan Act doesn't involve having a crystal embedded in your palm or Jenny Agutter.

It would be a lot more interesting than what's going on in this thread.

The image of EO staying up nights reading through obscure 18th-century constitutional law looking for something to stick the Democrats with is quite amusing...

It's the Executive Branch that gets to do foreign policy negotiations.

1) failed

2) the Logan Act by all measure is extremely likely to be unconstitution, and has only survived for 208 years because nobody, NOBODY, has ever been charged under it.

Oh so the Logan Act doesn't involve having a crystal embedded in your palm or Jenny Agutter.

No, you're thinking of the Logan's Run Act.

The law (putting aside the constitutional problems with it) says that no citizen may enter foreign policy negotiation without approval from the government.

Two question. One, Pelosi is acting not as a private citizen, but as an elected representative. Therefore it is questionable whether the law even applies to her. Now you can argue that Pelosi is always a citizen, regardless of whether she's elected or not....well, so is George W. Bush. And this law, if it applies to Pelosi, applies to him too.

Oh, wait, you say, if that were true it would make it illegal for bush to do what he has the power to do as president.

Well guess what? Law therefore unconstitutional.

So it either does NOT apply to Pelosi, or equally applies to Bush, meaning it's either void, or irrelevant.

But, hell, moving on. Let's say it does apply to her. It says the government may give permission, she is part of the government. It doesn't say what branch, or even how many members of that branch, just says the US government.

You say that it MUST be the president, as only the president can conduct foreign policy negotations. You fail again. Nowhere in the constitution does it say this. It says only the president may enter into TREATIES, but that's not happening here. There is no treaty involved, and nothing in the constitution says the legislative branch can not talk to foreign leaders, it says only they can not enter into a treaty, only ratify that treaty.

Now, you still claim that only the president, ONLY the president, as a matter of constitutional law, may enter into foreign policy negotiations. In that case, riddle me this batman. If only the president is allowed to enter into foreign policy negotiations...what's the point of this law?

"Wah, Democrats are traitors."

Grow up, Eve. Seriously. Grow up.

"Wah, Democrats are traitors."

Grow up, Eve. Seriously. Grow up.

Actually, in the unlikely event that this law really applies to Pelosi, it also applies to the Republican who accompanied her on this visit.

So Eve, does it not apply to Republicans?

Pelosi's trip is a good thing.

With the failed project in iraq destabilizing the middle east, the more powerful rulers there probably know they arent "next on the list," especially with the democrats likely return to power.

Recall, Syria cooperated with us in fighting terrorism before we invaded iraq, and we need to return to more effective relations with that secular country.

Actually, in the unlikely event that this law really applies to Pelosi, it also applies to the Republican who accompanied her on this visit.

So Eve, does it not apply to Republicans?

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

I think he's being silly too, but that's no reason to make false assumptions.

The law (putting aside the constitutional problems with it) says that no citizen may enter foreign policy negotiation without approval from the government.

Two question. One, Pelosi is acting not as a private citizen, but as an elected representative. Therefore it is questionable whether the law even applies to her. Now you can argue that Pelosi is always a citizen, regardless of whether she's elected or not....well, so is George W. Bush. And this law, if it applies to Pelosi, applies to him too.

Oh, wait, you say, if that were true it would make it illegal for bush to do what he has the power to do as president.

Well guess what? Law therefore unconstitutional.

So it either does NOT apply to Pelosi, or equally applies to Bush, meaning it's either void, or irrelevant.

But, hell, moving on. Let's say it does apply to her. It says the government may give permission, she is part of the government. It doesn't say what branch, or even how many members of that branch, just says the US government.

You say that it MUST be the president, as only the president can conduct foreign policy negotations. You fail again. Nowhere in the constitution does it say this. It says only the president may enter into TREATIES, but that's not happening here. There is no treaty involved, and nothing in the constitution says the legislative branch can not talk to foreign leaders, it says only they can not enter into a treaty, only ratify that treaty.

Now, you still claim that only the president, ONLY the president, as a matter of constitutional law, may enter into foreign policy negotiations. In that case, riddle me this batman. If only the president is allowed to enter into foreign policy negotiations...what's the point of this law?

Slam dunk

Oh so the Logan Act doesn't involve having a crystal embedded in your palm or Jenny Agutter.

I was expecting it to involve a hairy Canadian.

My point is that the international community HAS BEEN TALKING ALL THIS TIME AND IT HASN'T DONE JACK SHIT TO MOVE SYRIA'S POSITION ON:

2. THE DESIRE TO DESTROY ISRAEL

CAN'T YOU READ?
Syria doesn't really have a desire to destroy Israel. Sure, they'd prefer if Israel wasn't there, but they haven't taken any significant actions against Israel since Israel whooped on their asses 40-odd years ago. Syria's main foreign policy objectives are focused all on Lebanon, and the problem of muting Hezbollah's Iranian financiers, who were the ones that encouraged Hezbollah to attack Israel. Syria doesn't want Hezbollah to attack Israel, because Syria knows that a hostile Israel is not good for Syria's Lebanese objectives.

The law (putting aside the constitutional problems with it) says that no citizen may enter foreign policy negotiation without approval from the government.

Two question. One, Pelosi is acting not as a private citizen, but as an elected representative. Therefore it is questionable whether the law even applies to her. Now you can argue that Pelosi is always a citizen, regardless of whether she's elected or not....well, so is George W. Bush. And this law, if it applies to Pelosi, applies to him too.

Oh, wait, you say, if that were true it would make it illegal for bush to do what he has the power to do as president.

Well guess what? Law therefore unconstitutional.

So it either does NOT apply to Pelosi, or equally applies to Bush, meaning it's either void, or irrelevant.

But, hell, moving on. Let's say it does apply to her. It says the government may give permission, she is part of the government. It doesn't say what branch, or even how many members of that branch, just says the US government.

You say that it MUST be the president, as only the president can conduct foreign policy negotations. You fail again. Nowhere in the constitution does it say this. It says only the president may enter into TREATIES, but that's not happening here. There is no treaty involved, and nothing in the constitution says the legislative branch can not talk to foreign leaders, it says only they can not enter into a treaty, only ratify that treaty.

Now, you still claim that only the president, ONLY the president, as a matter of constitutional law, may enter into foreign policy negotiations. In that case, riddle me this batman. If only the president is allowed to enter into foreign policy negotiations...what's the point of this law?

I shall just say... :)

Wouldn't almost every president and ambassador being violating this act?

Ah, and EO tries to find new and amusing ways to silence any and all opposition to Dubya. So, what's new?

So what? You want America to invade another sovereign nation?

Cause, you know, this last one went so very, very well... :rolleyes:

The law (putting aside the constitutional problems with it) says that no citizen may enter foreign policy negotiation without approval from the government.

Two question. One, Pelosi is acting not as a private citizen, but as an elected representative. Therefore it is questionable whether the law even applies to her. Now you can argue that Pelosi is always a citizen, regardless of whether she's elected or not....well, so is George W. Bush. And this law, if it applies to Pelosi, applies to him too.

Oh, wait, you say, if that were true it would make it illegal for bush to do what he has the power to do as president.

Well guess what? Law therefore unconstitutional.

So it either does NOT apply to Pelosi, or equally applies to Bush, meaning it's either void, or irrelevant.

But, hell, moving on. Let's say it does apply to her. It says the government may give permission, she is part of the government. It doesn't say what branch, or even how many members of that branch, just says the US government.

You say that it MUST be the president, as only the president can conduct foreign policy negotations. You fail again. Nowhere in the constitution does it say this. It says only the president may enter into TREATIES, but that's not happening here. There is no treaty involved, and nothing in the constitution says the legislative branch can not talk to foreign leaders, it says only they can not enter into a treaty, only ratify that treaty.

Now, you still claim that only the president, ONLY the president, as a matter of constitutional law, may enter into foreign policy negotiations. In that case, riddle me this batman. If only the president is allowed to enter into foreign policy negotiations...what's the point of this law?
Brilliant.:D

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

ROTFLASTC.

This is truly pathetic and Arthais101 has already pwned this feeble attack on Pelosi.

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799 and no one has ever been prosecuted (let alone convicted) of violating it during its over 200 year history.

Pelosi's trip to Syria cannot serioulsy be said to violate the Act. For one thing, if it was a violation of the Logan Act, then thousands of Americans -- particularly thousands of Representatives, Senators, and former Executive Branch officials are guilty.

But the State Department has made clear the Act does not apply here.

First, in the DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750 (emphasis added), the State Department opined that visits to Cuba by Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern did not violate the act:

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, 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.

This ruling alone exonerates Pelosi and the Republicans who went with her.

It is worth, noting, moreover that the State Department also excused former President Nixon's correspondence and intercourse with the government of China. See DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1976, pp. 75-76.

This is a silly argument raised from time to time over the decades anytime one wishes to criticize a foreign trip. It has no validity.

Shame on you.

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799 and no one has ever been charged (let alone convicted) of violating it during its over 200 year history.

actually we are wrong. A newspaper WAS charged with violating the act, never prosecuted.

In 1803

Shame on you.

The sad part is if he had thought of this himself, while it's a totally BS argument, I would have at least aploauded him for SOME originality.

He didn't (http://www.gopprogress.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/4/2/104536/4914).

I am especially amused at the citation to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, as if it means a god damned thing.

actually we are wrong. A newspaper WAS charged with violating the act, never prosecuted.

In 1803

You are correct and I've changed my comments. Once in over 200 years an entity was charged with violating the Logan Act, but no one has ever been prosecuted for (let alone convicted of) violating it.



The sad part is if he had thought of this himself, while it's a totally BS argument, I would have at least aploauded him for SOME originality.

He didn't (http://www.gopprogress.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/4/2/104536/4914).

That is even more pathetic than a thought. It's an utter bullshit argument, but it is even lamer as a GOP talking point.

I am especially amused at the citation to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, as if it means a god damned thing.

:D :p

Speaking of the talking points, I am quite unsure how what she is doing is supposedly unconstitutional since only the president can "negotiate" with foreign powers.

What, I must wonder, is she negotiating WITH? The reason that only the president may negotiate is that only the presidet has the power to make good on his promises. That's the idea of negotiate, you give some, I give some.

It's true, Pelosi can not constitutionally negotiate, because she can not constitutionally make an offer, which is a key component in negotiation.

Talking however =/= negotiation

The sad part is if he had thought of this himself, while it's a totally BS argument, I would have at least aploauded him for SOME originality.

He didn't (http://www.gopprogress.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/4/2/104536/4914).

I am especially amused at the citation to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, as if it means a god damned thing.

It is possible he thought of it himself and posted it there, I suppose, but it's a pathetic argument regardless.

So what? You want America to invade another sovereign nation?

Do you really want DK to answer that? -.-

Do you really want DK to answer that? -.-
You know what? Yes, I do. :p

Though I'll be surprised if he ventures back into this thread considering his ass has just been handed to him, sprinkled with the garnish of Arthais's choice. ;)

Oh, it gets better. Pelosi isn't doing anything to undermine Bush, but guess who did something similar (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/) in the past:
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.

If the right is looking for members of Congress clearly infringing on the president’s constitutional prerogatives, they should look at Hastert, not Pelosi.Ouch.

Ouch.

Indeed. I can't wait to see DK's response. :)

Indeed. I can't wait to see DK's response. :)
My guess? He'll play the "it was wrong then, and wrong now" card, even though there's no indication outside the fevered dreams of right-wing bloggers that Pelosi is doing anything remotely like what Hastert did.

So, hold on: Wouldn't this put that girl who wrote to Yuri Andropov back in the early 80's in jail?

What about the Bush officials who did the same thing?

What about the Bush officials who did the same thing?

Technically, any Bush Administration officials would be conducting foreign policy on behalf of the President. Foreign policy is one of the executive duties mandated in the Constitution. This law was most likely put into place to prevent congresscritters from conducting foreign policy apart from the president, which would be a violation of the Constitution.

That said, this law is very old, and not applicable in this day and age.

So, hold on: Wouldn't this put that girl who wrote to Yuri Andropov back in the early 80's in jail?

One can only hope.

My point is that the international community HAS BEEN TALKING ALL THIS TIME AND IT HASN'T DONE JACK SHIT TO MOVE SYRIA'S POSITION ON:

1. ARMED SUPPORT FOR HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH
2. THE DESIRE TO DESTROY ISRAEL

CAN'T YOU READ?

:rolleyes:

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Israel, which I never brought up...I'm much more concerned about Syria's role in the current situation in Iraq.

Of course, Gravlen already tore your CAPS rant to shreds, and you haven't commented since.

Still, I'll ask if YOU can read, since you apparently missed my last question.

It's stupid. She's not in a position to promise anything.

So what? You think Assad doesn't know that??

He didn't have to host any such meeting, but he did. What does that say to you?

And I will reemphasize...

Bush's doctrine of "no talking" hasn't done shit.

What's that definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Yeah...

Talking may not accomplish a damn thing, but it certainly can't hurt to try something new, considering how badly the "no talking" policy has been working.

So, hold on: Wouldn't this put that girl who wrote to Yuri Andropov back in the early 80's in jail?

Samantha Smith? She's deceased.

Owned.

Samantha Smith? She's deceased.

I didn't know that. Of course, it doesn't help that I wouldn't be born until 3 years after she died, but I still didn't know that.

I didn't know that. Of course, it doesn't help that I wouldn't be born until 3 years after she died, but I still didn't know that.

Me, neither, 'til I looked it up. I was born in '85, so I don't remember her.

In fact, she died shortly before I was born.

In fact, she died shortly before I was born.

What, like you can't imprison corpses?

Something of interest:
Pelosi Plans Trip to Syria Next Week

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will visit Syria next week, her office announced yesterday, prompting the White House to call the trip "a really bad idea."

Pelosi's visit to Damascus is to be a centerpiece of a week-long Middle East tour that began yesterday in Israel. Both the White House and State Department knew about the visit in advance.

For security reasons, Pelosi staffers held off announcing the trip until after her arrival in Israel yesterday, and they had planned to announce the Syria leg after her departure from that country, Democratic aides said. After media inquiries, Pelosi's office issued a statement.

"As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria," the statement read.

The White House accuses Syria of sponsoring state terrorism and of fanning sectarian violence in Iraq. The Bush administration has cut off most high-level contacts with Damascus since former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri was assassinated in February 2005. A United Nations prosecutor has implicated Syrian officials in the Hariri slaying.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday of Pelosi's visit: "Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies."

Democrats were quick to point out that Perino did not speak out about a Syria trip planned for about the same time by a Republican-led delegation.

Pelosi will address the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, on Sunday and will also visit the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Her delegation includes Reps. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the House's only Muslim lawmaker; Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.); Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.); and David L. Hobson (R-Ohio).

Pelosi personally informed President Bush on Thursday of her travel plans, and he did not raise any objections, a person with knowledge of that conversation said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the department briefed the group and will provide routine support on the ground.

"In our view, it's not the right time to have those sort of high-profile visitors to Syria," McCormack told reporters yesterday.

Syrian leaders, he said, "point to the visits as proof that there is no problem with their behavior and that they are not, in fact, isolated. So that's the simple reason why we have encouraged others as well as Speaker Pelosi not to travel. . . . They made the decision to go forward."

The Iraq Study Group recommended in December that Washington reach out to Damascus for help in shutting down the insurgency in Iraq. Since then, a number of lawmakers, including Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have visited the Syrian capital for talks.

Pelosi Plans Trip to Syria Next Week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002010.html)

So...GWB knew about the trip beforehand and said nothing until she went. Then he decries it publicly. Who's the one grandstanding again?

Also, it's hardly a unique trip. Seems like 1/2 of congress have been to Syria lately.

Me, neither, 'til I looked it up. I was born in '85, so I don't remember her.

In fact, she died shortly before I was born.
ohhh.....maybe you're the reincarnation of her.

What, like you can't imprison corpses?

Well, I s'pose you could...

ohhh.....maybe you're the reincarnation of her.

:eek:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Maybe we should enforce this against Pelosi and the three Republicans who took a trip to Syria.

Is there a statute of limitations on this? There are some celebs, like Jane Fonda, who could have been prosecuted under this act. Or was it passed after her performance in Viet Nam?

The sad part is if he had thought of this himself, while it's a totally BS argument, I would have at least aploauded him for SOME originality.

He didn't (http://www.gopprogress.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/4/2/104536/4914).

I am especially amused at the citation to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, as if it means a god damned thing.
Ah, again we have the unsourced hand up EO's butt. Good to see looking for it has become routine.

Ah, again we have the unsourced hand up EO's butt. Good to see looking for it has become routine.

At this rate, EO will quietly disappear and someone else will pop up in a month with the same style, the same habits and tics, a new IP address and the same defensiveness when someone wonders aloud if he's a certain former poster.

ROTFLASTC.

This is truly pathetic and Arthais101 has already pwned this feeble attack on Pelosi.

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799 and no one has ever been prosecuted (let alone convicted) of violating it during its over 200 year history.

Pelosi's trip to Syria cannot serioulsy be said to violate the Act. For one thing, if it was a violation of the Logan Act, then thousands of Americans -- particularly thousands of Representatives, Senators, and former Executive Branch officials are guilty.

But the State Department has made clear the Act does not apply here.

First, in the DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750 (emphasis added), the State Department opined that visits to Cuba by Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern did not violate the act:

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, 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.

This ruling alone exonerates Pelosi and the Republicans who went with her.

It is worth, noting, moreover that the State Department also excused former President Nixon's correspondence and intercourse with the government of China. See DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1976, pp. 75-76.

This is a silly argument raised from time to time over the decades anytime one wishes to criticize a foreign trip. It has no validity.

Shame on you.


:) Well done.

*Offers a cookie*

:) Well done.

*Offers a cookie*

Apparently, Olmert says Pelosi is lying about her mission and message.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Obviously, she's lying on purpose, eh?

Or is she that daft to lie by accident?

Oh, and the Washington Post disagrees with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Apparently, we can take her statements to mean that she's running a shadow presidency. A well thought out argument in that link.

Apparently, Olmert says Pelosi is lying about her mission and message.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Obviously, she's lying on purpose, eh?

Or is she that daft to lie by accident?

Oh, and the Washington Post disagrees with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Apparently, we can take her statements to mean that she's running a shadow presidency. A well thought out argument in that link.

Washington Post disagrees with me? :confused: About what? They don't want me to give The Cat-Tribe a cookie? Well, if they say so...

Sorry Cat-Tribe, no cookie for you!

Oh, and your links adress the need for enforcing the Logan act how, exactly?
And note how I have yet to comment on the merit of Pelosi's 'mission'.

Washington Post disagrees with me? :confused: About what? They don't want me to give The Cat-Tribe a cookie? Well, if they say so...

Sorry Cat-Tribe, no cookie for you!

Oh, and your links adress the need for enforcing the Logan act how, exactly?
And note how I have yet to comment on the merit of Pelosi's 'mission'.

I'm just saying it could be done, based on her comments before, during, and after the mission.

The Logan Act was written specifically to curb this sort of nonsense.

I'm just saying it could be done, based on her comments before, during, and after the mission.

The Logan Act was written specifically to curb this sort of nonsense.

And what about those who wrote the memo briefing the Israeli Government on the best way of dealing with the US administration...or is that "different"....?

I'm just saying it could be done, based on her comments before, during, and after the mission.

The Logan Act was written specifically to curb this sort of nonsense.

Um, no, it isn't. Have you conveniently ignored Cat Tribe's source from the US State Department?

Um, no, it isn't. Have you conveniently ignored Cat Tribe's source from the US State Department?

Bush controls the State Department.

That could change with an executive order. See?

And it was originally written to prevent meddling.

See the story of Mr. George Logan.

Bush controls the State Department.

That could change with an executive order. See?

But as of right now, it has not, correct? LIttle problem with things being ex-post facto...

And it was originally written to prevent meddling.

See the story of Mr. George Logan.

Sorry, was he one of the people NOT prosecuted under this law, along with everyone else NOT prosecuted under this law, greatly contrasted with the number of people who WERE prosecuted under this law, which is 0.

The only reason this law has surived on the books is because nobody has the standing to challenge it. It's grossly unconstitutional for more reasons than just vagueness problems.

But as of right now, it has not, correct? LIttle problem with things being ex-post facto...

Sorry, was he one of the people NOT prosecuted under this law, along with everyone else NOT prosecuted under this law, greatly contrasted with the number of people who WERE prosecuted under this law, which is 0.

The only reason this law has surived on the books is because nobody has the standing to challenge it. It's grossly unconstitutional for more reasons than just vagueness problems.

Yes, I know he wasn't prosecuted under it - but you're missing the point - it's why it was written.

It would certainly be a matter for Constitutional debate if it were framed as a matter of Executive power vs. Congressional power.

Yes, I know he wasn't prosecuted under it - but you're missing the point - it's why it was written.

No, you're missing the point. Even if that were true, Dr. Logan (yes, Dr. not Mr.) and Pelosi have one big, huge, gigantic difference.

Logan wasn't a congressman. He was a private citizen. It was written in response to the actions of a private citizen, and meant to counter the behavior of private citizens doing such. As noted, the state department has already stated it was not meant to be applied to members of the federal government.

It would certainly be a matter for Constitutional debate if it were framed as a matter of Executive power vs. Congressional power.

It wouldn't make it that far, the whole thing is VFV.

Seriously now, you lost. You lost this fight on page 2. Stop trying to fight your way back to cling desperatly to the chance that two attorneys, the US State Department, and 200 years of jurisprudence are wrong and you are right.

Save some face and have a LITTLE dignity to bow out gracefully instead of desperatly trying to reassemble the ashes of your "argument"

No, you're missing the point. Even if that were true, Dr. Logan (yes, Dr. not Mr.) and Pelosi have one big, huge, gigantic difference.

Logan wasn't a congressman. He was a private citizen. It was written in response to the actions of a private citizen, and meant to counter the behavior of private citizens doing such. As noted, the state department has already stated it was not meant to be applied to members of the federal government.

It wouldn't make it that far, the whole thing is VFV

If I were President, I would order that it be enforced against any citizen who was not part of the Executive Branch, or anyone who had not previously gotten written permission from the Executive Branch.

and in doing so would act extraordinarily unconstitutional. Bush can order whatever he wants, he can order that as of today pink unicorns exist.

Doesn't make it so.

The executive branch can not stop another branch of government from performing its functions. While the power to negotiate is part of the powers of the executive, it's been held, as we have sene, that it is inherent in the powers of the legislative to hold conversations with foreign leaders.

It appears that Pelosi has stated that she has her own plans to negotiate - in essence, act as the Executive.

It's not in her power to do that.

If I were President, I would order that it be enforced against any citizen who was not part of the Executive Branch, or anyone who had not previously gotten written permission from the Executive Branch.

and in doing so would act extraordinarily unconstitutional. Bush can order whatever he wants, he can order that as of today pink unicorns exist.

Doesn't make it so.

The executive branch can not stop another branch of government from performing its functions. While the power to negotiate is part of the powers of the executive, it's been held, as we have sene, that it is inherent in the powers of the legislative to hold conversations with foreign leaders.

If I were President, I would order that it be enforced against any citizen who was not part of the Executive Branch, or anyone who had not previously gotten written permission from the Executive Branch.

How could it be? the act is not worded to exclude only the Executive branch

How could it be? the act is not worded to exclude only the Executive branch

If we're taking Arthais' word that somehow, the State Department is empowered to describe the use and scope of the Act, then it's easy enough to order it changed.

We can send it to the Supreme Court to argue it, after a case has been filed.

And if seen in the light of Executive vs. Congressional power, I'm sure a long fight can ensue.

If you empower the legislature to hold negotiations and dictate foreign policy against the will of the Executive, you're obviously undercutting a major part of the Executive's power.

Unconstitutional.

See, and here's where you are running your head into the wall.

What negotiations have taken place? You seem to think that talking = negotiating, which is not only false, but blatantly silly.

She's carrying messages back and forth - some of which she lied about (like the message from Olmert).

That's foreign policy activity. Trying to open a channel to talk when we are not talking is foreign policy activity.

If you empower the legislature to hold negotiations and dictate foreign policy against the will of the Executive, you're obviously undercutting a major part of the Executive's power.

Unconstitutional.

See, and here's where you are running your head into the wall.

What negotiations have taken place? You seem to think that talking = negotiating, which is not only false, but blatantly silly.

If we're taking Arthais' word that somehow, the State Department is empowered to describe the use and scope of the Act, then it's easy enough to order it changed.

We can send it to the Supreme Court to argue it, after a case has been filed.

And if seen in the light of Executive vs. Congressional power, I'm sure a long fight can ensue.

If you empower the legislature to hold negotiations and dictate foreign policy against the will of the Executive, you're obviously undercutting a major part of the Executive's power.

Unconstitutional.

Who held negotiations?

Who held negotiations?

Obviously, Pelosi (and perhaps a few Republicans as well) held high level talks with Syria, as well as passing diplomatic messages (which appear to have been complete lies).

High level contact can easily be considered negotiations.

Obviously, Pelosi (and perhaps a few Republicans as well) held high level talks with Syria, as well as passing diplomatic messages (which appear to have been complete lies).

High level contact can easily be considered negotiations.

Only if they can actually offer something, otherwise it is just talking

Only if they can actually offer something, otherwise it is just talking

I'm sure she can offer influence in Congress, negating Bush's policies by underfunding them, etc.

I'm sure she can offer influence in Congress, negating Bush's policies by underfunding them, etc.

Possibly ... did she do that?

Possibly ... did she do that?

Read her comments and those of Assad. I'm sure you can reach a conclusion that she sought some accomodation, or change in Syria's position.

Which they appear to have given her.

She also passed a diplomatic message, which falls under the purview of the State Department, not the Congress.

She also lied in that message. One wonders why she would pass a lie.

I'm sure she can offer influence in Congress, negating Bush's policies by underfunding them, etc.

All of which is fully within her constitutional power. It is unconstitutional for Pelosi to negotiate with things she can not do under the constitution. She can not enter into, or negotiate treaties, wars, or military actions. She can offer nothing to the other side that she doesn't have the power to give.

She can not negotiate with powers reserved for the executive. She certainly as HELL can exercise her powers as a legislator, and any attempt by Bush to STOP her from exercising her powers as a legislator would be unconstitutional.

It appears that Pelosi has stated that she has her own plans to negotiate - in essence, act as the Executive.

It's not in her power to do that.

Attn: Brick Wall

Correct: It is not in her power to do that, because it is not in her power to make treaties. Without some kind of consideration, they can't "negotiate"

That is all.

I'm sure she can offer influence in Congress, negating Bush's policies by underfunding them, etc.

So when David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, James Colbert etc wrote a "New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" in which they act as advisors to a foriegn Government why don't they get accussed by you of doing the same?

Possibly ... did she do that?
Hastert certainly did with Columbia during the Clinton administration. Didn't hear any bitching from the right back then, but we sure heard it from the State Department. But IOKIYAR, as always I guess.

Oh, and Think Progress completely pwns the Washington Post editorial (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05/post-editorial-pelosi-syria/) Eve was bandying about.

The Washington Post editorial page today published a vicious editorial attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), calling her “ludicrous” and describing her bipartisan trip to Syria as an “attempt to establish a shadow presidency.”

The editorial rests on two claims, both of which are baseless.

1) Pelosi passed an incorrect message from Israel to Syria. Pelosi said yesterday that she gave Syrian officials the message that Israel is “ready to engage in peace talks.” The Post falsely claims, “The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message,” misinterpreting a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office that simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president “over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.”

2) Pelosi is attempting to “establish a shadow presidency.” This claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.
So who gets it right--the newspaper side or the editorial page? Based on previous history, I have to go with the newspaper side.

Oh, and Think Progress completely pwns the Washington Post editorial (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05/post-editorial-pelosi-syria/) Eve was bandying about.


So who gets it right--the newspaper side or the editorial page? Based on previous history, I have to go with the newspaper side.

Ah, the Jerusalem Post is a newspaper as well.

And apparently, Olmert caught Pelosi in an outright lie to Syria.

Going to go with the newspaper now?

.

Going to go with the newspaper now?

Going to answer re Perle etc now?

Ah, the Jerusalem Post is a newspaper as well.

And apparently, Olmert caught Pelosi in an outright lie to Syria.

Going to go with the newspaper now?
Yes. What you call an outright lie, I call, well, Eve's normal mischaracterization of the facts on the ground.

Yes. What you call an outright lie, I call, well, Eve's normal mischaracterization of the facts on the ground.

How is this a mischaracterization?

The Prime Minister's Office has strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.

The bureau responded to questions raised yesterday by a statement made by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, following a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Pelosi said she had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.

The Prime Minister's Office was quick to issue a denial, stating that "what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel's policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter."

In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."

According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."

The same sources explained that the decision to issue a statement of denial stemmed from questions from Israeli and foreign press regarding a change in Israel's official stance on negotiations with Syria.

It's an official denial from the Prime Minister of Israel - a denial of what Pelosi said in Syria.

Even they say she's lying.

And how, exactly, was the Washington Post disagreeing with me again?

Maybe you didn't bother reading my link. Typical - you either don't read, or you disclaim.

I'm just saying it could be done, based on her comments before, during, and after the mission.

The Logan Act was written specifically to curb this sort of nonsense.

And how, exactly, was the Washington Post disagreeing with me again?

Ah, the Jerusalem Post is a newspaper as well.

And apparently, Olmert caught Pelosi in an outright lie to Syria.

Going to go with the newspaper now?

Your paranoid ramblings do bring up some interesting questions: why do Bush and Olmert both want to appear as if they do not support such dialogue?

Bush's motives, I believe, are simple: he really doesn't want any talks with Syria, but all he can do is criticise and denounce her, as he has no legal recourse.

What about Olmert? Didn't he say that the Saudi peace plan was revolutionary just last week? Maybe he did send a message through Pelosi, but had to publicly denounce it because Israel is not willing to negotiate with Syria unless etc. etc. etc. If Olmert is serious about moving beyond the current impasse, she might have given him a golden opportunity.

Now that I think about it, she would be the perfect person for such a job. Even if it later came out that Olmert had sent a message through her, he could still claim that she was not negotiating for him, as she has no leverage or powers of negotiation. Plausible deniability, in a way. Deceits within deceits.

To understand mideast politics, you apparently have to think like a Harkonnen.

Of course, all this depends on Olmert's motives.

If I were President, I would order that it be enforced against any citizen who was not part of the Executive Branch, or anyone who had not previously gotten written permission from the Executive Branch.

You being the President is the single most horrifying idea you've ever proposed on this forum, DK.

You being the President is the single most horrifying idea you've ever proposed on this forum, DK.

I second that. EO/DK is about the only person that frightens me more than Bush when I imagine him in the oval office.

If I were President, I would order that it be enforced against any citizen who was not part of the Executive Branch, or anyone who had not previously gotten written permission from the Executive Branch.

If you were the president, the USA would be a dystopia and the brave people of the world would have to rise against it to prevent global destruction, not unlike a videogame RPG.

Maybe you didn't bother reading my link. Typical - you either don't read, or you disclaim.

I did read, but you're being deliberately vague (or obtuse?) so I'll ask again:

How, exactly, was the Washington Post disagreeing with me again?


ROTFLASTC.

This is truly pathetic and Arthais101 has already pwned this feeble attack on Pelosi.

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799 and no one has ever been prosecuted (let alone convicted) of violating it during its over 200 year history.

Pelosi's trip to Syria cannot serioulsy be said to violate the Act. For one thing, if it was a violation of the Logan Act, then thousands of Americans -- particularly thousands of Representatives, Senators, and former Executive Branch officials are guilty.

But the State Department has made clear the Act does not apply here.

First, in the DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750 (emphasis added), the State Department opined that visits to Cuba by Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern did not violate the act:

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, 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.

This ruling alone exonerates Pelosi and the Republicans who went with her.

It is worth, noting, moreover that the State Department also excused former President Nixon's correspondence and intercourse with the government of China. See DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1976, pp. 75-76.

This is a silly argument raised from time to time over the decades anytime one wishes to criticize a foreign trip. It has no validity.

Shame on you.


:) Well done.

*Offers a cookie*

What part of "Well done" doesn't the Washington Post agree with? Or what part of the Cat-Tribes argument?

I did read, but you're being deliberately vague (or obtuse?) so I'll ask again:

How, exactly, was the Washington Post disagreeing with me again?



What part of "Well done" doesn't the Washington Post agree with? Or what part of the Cat-Tribes argument?

None. EO's managed to make three different argument and twist them into one gigantic pile of error.

None. EO's managed to make three different argument and twist them into one gigantic pile of error.

That's what I thought. (And he accuses me of not reading :rolleyes: )

I really want to know what he thinks I've said though...

That's what I thought. (And he accuses me of not reading :rolleyes: )

I really want to know what he thinks I've said though...

functionally there are three arguments:

1) whether or not the Logan Act applies either to Pelosi as a member of the government, or is in fact even valid in the face of a very legitimate vagueness problem

2) whether or not Pelosi, as a member of the federal legislature, has the constitutional authority to meet with, and speak with, and deliver messages to members of a foreign government

3) if she does, to what extent is the exercise of that authority permissable until it crosses the line into negotiation, which is firmly an executive branch power?

He tried to jumble those up in such a nonsensical way as to merge them into one collosal cluster of an argument, when really they are two entirely seperate things. First is whether she violated the Act, and second whether she overstepped her constitutional authority, and to what extent she has that authority.

functionally there are three arguments:

1) whether or not the Logan Act applies either to Pelosi as a member of the government, or is in fact even valid in the face of a very legitimate vagueness problem

2) whether or not Pelosi, as a member of the federal legislature, has the constitutional authority to meet with, and speak with, and deliver messages to members of a foreign government

3) if she does, to what extent is the exercise of that authority permissable until it crosses the line into negotiation, which is firmly an executive branch power?

He tried to jumble those up in such a nonsensical way as to merge them into one collosal cluster of an argument, when really they are two entirely seperate things. First is whether she violated the Act, and second whether she overstepped her constitutional authority, and to what extent she has that authority.
Not surprised at that either, given his history... At least someone can present the problems rationally, though I would say that invocing the Logan act at all is just silly.

I'm still waiting for him to answer why he wanted to invoke the act in the first place though. He never did answer that one, and I'm not expecting to see it happen either...

Not surprised at that either, given his history... At least someone can present the problems rationally, though I would say that invocing the Logan act at all is just silly.

I'm still waiting for him to answer why he wanted to invoke the act in the first place though. He never did answer that one, and I'm not expecting to see it happen either...

The answer is simple, because he's a partisan hack.

Now, I'm going to be uncatagorically nice, and lay the whole thing out.

The first question that must be asked is, does Pelosi have the power to meet and speak with heads of foreign governments.

So, let us turn to the constitution, shall we? It says the president is the only party that may enter into TREATIES, so it's clear Pelosi may not do this. But it does not say that that they can never meet. One can argue, strongly, that meeting and speaking with foreign dignitaries is an inherent responsibility for the heads of state, which, since the branches are co-equal, includes Pelosi as well as Bush.

So, it seems to be that, yes, Pelosi CAN meet with, speak with, and deliver messages to foreign leaders as part of her constitutional authority. She can not, however, NEGOTIATE with them, that is simply the job of the president or presidential deligate.

So now moving to the Act. The state department has stated its interpretation that the act does not apply to congress. Why not? Because of that inherent authority. If congress can do something, congress can do something. One branch needs not seek permission from another branch to exercise its authority. The judiciary can not be compelled to ask permission from congress before making a ruling, for example.

So if Pelosi has constitutional authority to meet and speak with foreign heads of state, then no law may deny her that authority, as it would be unconstitutional. This is what the state department notes, the law simply CAN NOT apply to her, for if it did, and required her to seek permission to exercise her constitutional authority as a congressperson, it would be unconstitutional.

Now, as Eve Online rather...oddly argues, that since the state department is an executive agency, it can change its interpretation by executive order. Well...yes, this is true. But its interpretation is rather not important. It's not law. Only the judiciary's interpretation of the constitution are law. So sure, the state department can, by executive order, change its position...but so what? They are not the courts. The state department has formed its interpretation based on court precident, not the other way around.

So as long as it has been held that Pelosi, as a head of state, has the power to meet and speak with foreign leaders, The Act simply can not apply to her, as it would deny her the power to utilize her authority, at her discretion.

Whether in executing that authority she overstepped her constitutional bounds and entered into "negotiation" is another matter entirely, and is completely and totally irrelevant to whether she violated the act.

If the Logan Act were to apply to her it would be unconstitutional since it would limit her ability to exercise her powers as she sees fit. The only way, the ONLY WAY that the Logan Act could even POSSIBLY apply to her is if she, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, does not have the inherent power to meet with world leaders. The idea that she, not just a congress person, but speaker of the house, doesn't have the power to meet with foreign dignitaries is laughable. A proposition so ascinine that even Bush's Department of State doesn't agree with it.

Silly Eve, legal analysis isn't for kids.

Now, I'm going to be uncatagorically nice, and lay the whole thing out.

*Snip*.

Wow. You are nice :)

:p

Disclaimer: The Washington Post may disagree with me here...

I second that. EO/DK is about the only person that frightens me more than Bush when I imagine him in the oval office.

Thirded.

It reminds me of how the US government had to nail Al Capone on Tax Evasion simply because they couldn't get him on all the racketeering and organized crime charges.

"We can't convict Pelosi of treason so we'll dig up an archaic law that hasn't been enforced for over 3 centuries to get her!!"

It reminds me of how the US government had to nail Al Capone on Tax Evasion simply because they couldn't get him on all the racketeering and organized crime charges.

"We can't convict Pelosi of treason so we'll dig up an archaic law that hasn't been enforced for over 3 centuries to get her!!"

At least those prosecuting Capone used a real law that had actually been used before and was semi realistic

Arthais101: You truly know your stuff.

All: Who is dk?

Arthais101: You truly know your stuff.

Thanks, though my JD didn't come out of a cracker jack box ya know.

All: Who is dk?

Deep Kimchi, a former poster. He gained quite a reputation as being an extreme right wing nut who would spout vitrol at the left but do nothing to actually back up his claims.

He faded away from the forums, and not long after, Eve Online showed up, with nearly identical viewpoints, politics, arguments, and posting style, leaving many to conclude that he is, in fact, Deep Kimchi, though EO denies it.

Deep Kimchi, a former poster. He gained quite a reputation as being an extreme right wing nut who would spout vitrol at the left but do nothing to actually back up his claims.

He faded away from the forums, and not long after, Eve Online showed up, with nearly identical viewpoints, politics, arguments, and posting style, leaving many to conclude that he is, in fact, Deep Kimchi, though EO denies it.

Not anymore...

From another thread:

Actually, Sierra BTHP is not DK...

We're actually two distinct people, who have been doing this for over a year now...

maybe my partners and I will list the over 20 alts we've been posting with over the past two years...

So you admit you've been trolling?

No, we haven't been trolling.

It's perfectly legal to disagree here.

Not disagree. Do you believe the things you've been arguing? Or were you just trying to stir things up?

And the we would explain the schizophrenic posting styles. I don't y'all were very careful to keep one person to one persona.

Some of the things we believe. Some of them we don't.

Are you saying that everyone here absolutely believes everything they argue here?

And no, not just to stir things up.

huh? when did this happen?

Now, I'm going to be uncatagorically nice, and lay the whole thing out.

The first question that must be asked is, does Pelosi have the power to meet and speak with heads of foreign governments.

So, let us turn to the constitution, shall we? It says the president is the only party that may enter into TREATIES, so it's clear Pelosi may not do this. But it does not say that that they can never meet. One can argue, strongly, that meeting and speaking with foreign dignitaries is an inherent responsibility for the heads of state, which, since the branches are co-equal, includes Pelosi as well as Bush.

So, it seems to be that, yes, Pelosi CAN meet with, speak with, and deliver messages to foreign leaders as part of her constitutional authority. She can not, however, NEGOTIATE with them, that is simply the job of the president or presidential deligate.

So now moving to the Act. The state department has stated its interpretation that the act does not apply to congress. Why not? Because of that inherent authority. If congress can do something, congress can do something. One branch needs not seek permission from another branch to exercise its authority. The judiciary can not be compelled to ask permission from congress before making a ruling, for example.

So if Pelosi has constitutional authority to meet and speak with foreign heads of state, then no law may deny her that authority, as it would be unconstitutional. This is what the state department notes, the law simply CAN NOT apply to her, for if it did, and required her to seek permission to exercise her constitutional authority as a congressperson, it would be unconstitutional.

Now, as Eve Online rather...oddly argues, that since the state department is an executive agency, it can change its interpretation by executive order. Well...yes, this is true. But its interpretation is rather not important. It's not law. Only the judiciary's interpretation of the constitution are law. So sure, the state department can, by executive order, change its position...but so what? They are not the courts. The state department has formed its interpretation based on court precident, not the other way around.

So as long as it has been held that Pelosi, as a head of state, has the power to meet and speak with foreign leaders, The Act simply can not apply to her, as it would deny her the power to utilize her authority, at her discretion.

Whether in executing that authority she overstepped her constitutional bounds and entered into "negotiation" is another matter entirely, and is completely and totally irrelevant to whether she violated the act.

If the Logan Act were to apply to her it would be unconstitutional since it would limit her ability to exercise her powers as she sees fit. The only way, the ONLY WAY that the Logan Act could even POSSIBLY apply to her is if she, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, does not have the inherent power to meet with world leaders. The idea that she, not just a congress person, but speaker of the house, doesn't have the power to meet with foreign dignitaries is laughable. A proposition so ascinine that even Bush's Department of State doesn't agree with it.

Silly Eve, legal analysis isn't for kids.

Exemplary work.

If Eve is DK, this is even more pathetic, because DK is an attorney and should know better.

Thanks, though my JD didn't come out of a cracker jack box ya know.

JD?

Deep Kimchi, a former poster. He gained quite a reputation as being an extreme right wing nut who would spout vitrol at the left but do nothing to actually back up his claims.

He faded away from the forums, and not long after, Eve Online showed up, with nearly identical viewpoints, politics, arguments, and posting style, leaving many to conclude that he is, in fact, Deep Kimchi, though EO denies it.

I have the feeling that this (new identity) happens often *looks for a reference to someone being MTAE*

Must get a bit confusing at times, having to avoid talking in a certain way in order to not reveal identity.

huh? when did this happen?

Just now. Click the arrows to find the thread :)

No surprise, though...

Apparently, Olmert says Pelosi is lying about her mission and message.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Obviously, she's lying on purpose, eh?

Or is she that daft to lie by accident?

Um. Nice try, but that article doesn't call Pelosi a liar. It merely says the Isreali government issued a clarification of its position. At worst, Pelosi erred in communicating about Isreal's position.

Oh, and the Washington Post disagrees with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Apparently, we can take her statements to mean that she's running a shadow presidency. A well thought out argument in that link.

Not even a good try.

That editorial says nothing whatsoever about the Logan Act -- the supposed topic of this thread.

Did you think we were too stupid to read the articles you link?

Not anymore...

From another thread:
That is truly fucked.

But no way were WL, Sierra BHTP and DK different posters.

That is truly fucked.

But no way were WL, Sierra BHTP and DK different posters.

Yeah, looks like we can stop even pretending to treat DK seriously. He's just a troll. Troll, troll, troll. "LOL ME AND MY ALTS HAVE BEEN HERE 4 EVER!! U CANT STOP US WE DO IT ALWAYS LOL!"

Ugh.

Yeah, looks like we can stop even pretending to treat DK seriously. He's just a troll. Troll, troll, troll. "LOL ME AND MY ALTS HAVE BEEN HERE 4 EVER!! U CANT STOP US WE DO IT ALWAYS LOL!"

Ugh.

I'm actually going to miss him though. Exposing his bullshit was fun :( What the heck made him crack? This could have carried on indefinitely. It didn't even look like someone was actually accusing him at the time...his 'confession' seems out of the blue.

Exemplary work.

If Eve is DK, this is even more pathetic, because DK is an attorney and should know better.

a funny thing occured to me too, while I was thinking about this.

It has been held that the federal government has the inherent constitutional authority to do such things that are inherent in the concept of nationhood. In other words, because the constitution forms a nation, it implicitly empowers the government to do such things required for nationhood.

For example, none of the enumerated powers of Congress suggest that it can create a national flag, but it has been held that they implicitly have this power because having a flag is the sort of things that nations do, as such, creating a national flag is such an act inherent in the concept of nationhood, so congress has the constitutional authority to create a flag, as creating a flag is such a thing that nations do.

Well, what else is inherent in the concept of nationhood? Another thing we can imagine inherent in the concept of nationhood is that one nation's heads of state meet and speak with foreign heads of state.

Now, our branches are co-equal. We do not have one single head of state. Bush is not the head of our government, he is merely the head of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi, it can be argued, is head of the legislative branch, as she is speaker of the house. Therefore Bush, Pelosi, and presumably Chief Justice Roberts, are all heads of state, as they are all heads of the three co-equal branches of our government.

So because heads of state meeting with foreign heads of state is inherent in the concept of nationhood, and the constitution does not clearly deliniate that athority to ONE branch, it can be argued, since we have three heads of state, that all three of them, inherent in the concept of nationhood, have the authority to meet with foreign heads of state.

However the republican congressmen that went with her are not heads of state. They are members of the government, but not heads of any particular branch. Pelosi is.

So if I wanted to be snooty and snotty I could argue that, since Pelosi is a head of state, she has the constitutional authority, inherent in the concept of nationhood, to meet with foreign dignitaries. Therefore the Logan Act CAN NOT apply to her, because it would deny her, as a head of state, her inherent constitutional authority, implicit in the concept of nationhood, to meet with foreign heads of state.

The republican congressmen, while members of the government, are not heads of state, and may NOT have the inherent constitutional authority implicit in the concept of nationhood to meet with foreign dignitaries.

So while the logan act CAN NOT apply to her, because it would deny her her constitutional powers as heads of state, the congressmen that accompanied her have no such power, and would apply to them.

JD?

Juris Doctorate, from the latin for "Doctor of Law". The degree lawyers get when they finish lawschool.

Um. Nice try, but that article doesn't call Pelosi a liar. It merely says the Isreali government issued a clarification of its position. At worst, Pelosi erred in communicating about Isreal's position.



Not even a good try.

That editorial says nothing whatsoever about the Logan Act -- the supposed topic of this thread.

Did you think we were too stupid to read the articles you link?

EDIT: Note that my dismissive comments take the linked article and editorial at face value. Even then they don't support EO's assertions.

In fact, The Nazz has more than adequately rebutted the articles.

Yeah, looks like we can stop even pretending to treat DK seriously. He's just a troll. Troll, troll, troll. "LOL ME AND MY ALTS HAVE BEEN HERE 4 EVER!! U CANT STOP US WE DO IT ALWAYS LOL!"

Ugh.

Too bad trolls are not the forgotten realms variety (via baldurs gate) then they could be destroyed by their own acidic speech.

Juris Doctorate, from the latin for "Doctor of Law". The degree lawyers get when they finish lawschool.

Cool. I thought Justice (which would seem more as judge but I took it as law) Degree but wasn't sure if I was on the right track.