No, Republicans Did Not Commit Treason Or Violate The Logan Act

Hardhatters ^ | 03/11/2015 | Hal Hawkins

[thetallguy24]

Earlier this week, 47 Republican Senators, led by Tom Cotton of Arkansas, sent a letter to the “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” informing them of the process the U.S. Constitution requires when ratifying treaties or, in the words of the Obama administration, “executive agreements.” The letter emphasized that any “congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate” and, if not approved, any agreement would be solely between both countries’ executives. The final sentence of the letter stated, “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.”

Soon after though, liberal outlets and leaders lambasted the Senators, calling the letters “a Logan Act violation” and “treasonous”. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean echoed this by saying the letter “borders on treason”, while Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont labeled it as “outrageous behavior.” Vice President Joe Biden chimed in saying the letter “offends” him. Even now, a petition with nearly 150,000 signatures is calling for charges to be filed against the 47 Senators for violating the Logan act and committing “a treasonous offense”.

In rushing so quickly to judgment, opponents fail to understand several facts. First, treason and violating the Logan Act are two separate legal matters. Here are the two listed within the U.S. Code:

“18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any

[thetallguy24]

Of course, Teddy tried to revoke the act. He was trying to negotiate with the Soviets, and didn't want to go to jail.

[Star Traveler]

I posted this on another thread and in regards to a similar article ...

— — — — —

Well ... it is clear that this guy in Iran doesn’t understand the USA and how it works ... LOL ...

The article said ... “He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.”

WHAT he doesn’t understand is that the President cannot bind the nation to a treaty with another nation without it being approved by the Senate. Now, the President can take unofficial actions and do things during his term in office that are not a treaty with another nation, but that other nation should not think that these actions are in any way binding on the next President or that Congress cannot act and outlaw certain actions.

—

And then the article says ... Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law.

THE PROBLEM here is that there is nothing in International Law that can make the USA do something that was never approved by the nation in the first place. SO ... even if the President were engaging in unofficial actions, as stated above, the next President is not bound by those unofficial actions and the nation is not bound by those unofficial actions, no matter what this foreign minister thinks.

—

And then ... “The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

VERY BRIEFLY, it is NOT an “international obligation” since it would not have been an obligation that was entered into by “the nation” in the legal manner required to do so in that nation.

—

And lastly ... The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.

ONCE AGAIN ... there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION if it is not formally enacted in the manner required by law in that nation. Iran cannot enforce something as an “international obligation” just because it wants it to be. It has to be FORMALLY and LEGALLY ENACTED within that nation.

— — —

Iran’s Foreign Minister is “blowing smoke” and talking AS IF he actually knows what is CONSTITUTIONAL in the USA ... LOL ...

[TigersEye]

This is what treason looks like...

American Patriots Against John Kerry

The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.

Kerry met with representatives from “both delegations” of the Vietnamese (North Vietnamese and Viet Cong) in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry’s own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry’s meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s.

According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. “A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power,” Corsi told CNSNews.com.

By Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam Warshould be stopped.

[Sgt_Schultze]

The nuts who call it treason are demented. For reference purposes, let's have a look at the definition of treason. Fortunately for us, the framers of the country thought ahead and enshrined the definition in the Constitution itself.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

- US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

[DannyTN]

Good Post

[thetallguy24]

They must be using some kind of bot to get that many petition signatures

[The Great RJ]

Where is the video of Nancy Pelosi meeting with Assad in Syria and didn’t several prominent Democrats met with Danny Ortega in Nicaragua when he was fighting a war against an elected government?

[BykrBayb]

I posted this on another thread and in regards to a similar article ...

Keep posting it. It's good.

[Louis Foxwell]

The charge of treason is most specifically applicable to the Obama administration vis a vis its support of violent extremism across a wide swath of political and geographic terrain.
The Obama administration has shown substantial deference to the most radical and extremist components of the Islamic movement in nearly every country in the mideast.
Moreover the Obama administration has been aggressive in its attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of this country’s ally in the mideast, Egypt, and it is even today actively working to subvert the current administration of Israel.
In all respects the Obama administration is acting as a coconspirator in the violent jihad of Islamic extremists.
The substantial appointments of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, in all levels of US government offices is mere demonstration of the treasonous actions of the Obama administration.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Nope Notta bot. There are too many flaming idiots who have passed through the government propaganda mills known as the public schools. Take a look at the comments to this story on a facebook link. The programming is on overload with these morons.

[Sgt_Schultze]

agreed

[bubbacluck]

The nuts who call it treason are demented.

I was looking at Twitter yesterday on the #47Traitors thread and was astounded at the breathtaking level of ignorance of those wanting to arrest, try and imprison those 47 Senators. It was distressing.

[thetallguy24]

One of the commenter’s on that article:

“To write a letter to another country to warn them that dealing with the Executive Office of the US is not in their best interests, is complete and utter treason.”

This kid has no idea what treason is.

[hosepipe]

Has Logan's Run.. Started?..

[molson209]

Just giving the Iranians some Facts they would never get from Obama

[WonkyTonky]

Writing a letter is not negotiating, so its not treason.

Someone justifiably brought up Ted Kennedy, what Kennedy did was treason, by his communicating with Andropov trying to unseat President Reagan in the then upcoming 1984 presidential election.

[SunkenCiv]

Have a great day.

[tanknetter]

Someone needs to point out to these guys how George W Bush “unsigned” the Kyoto Accords, and how Obama ditched the agreement to put BMD missiles into Poland.

So International law, schminternational law. Without that 2/3rds concurrence from the Senate, plus any required supportive funding (which originates in the House), any Presidentially-signed agreement can immediately become as valuable as the toilet paper in the Oval Office bathroom.

[tophat9000]

The thing is if Obama is trying to make a treaty with another country and enforce it as a treaty without the consent of Congress.. it Obama committing treason...

It would be akin to me trying to sell you property and representing myself as sole owner of the property with title tranfer when I sign.. when in fact I'm not the owner, I'm acting as an agent for a group that own it and that group must first vote on the deal I strike and present to them to have a legal sale

...Obama is the head of the federal..and the federal is the agency that make treats for the 50 states.. and the Senate is the representative for each of the 50 states that votes if it accepts and approves of the deal the federal representative struck.. without the vote of the 50 "United States"... you have no deal with the 50 "United States"

... After all if the federal could act unilaterally to make treaties the federal could "sell" all 50 states to Iran if it wanted to without the states having a word in it....

The Fed does not own the states..the states created the fed to be the state Collective agent and providing the agent get its client, the states, approval....

[tanknetter]

One more thing to add: the lecturing by the Iranians on the mechanics of the US Constitution really makes me wonder whether the Obama Admin is whispering lies in their ears about any agreememt being permanent.