Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: White Lives Matter

must be a law somewhere else, cause this ain’t covered under the Constitution Emoluments Clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


27 posted on 03/13/2021 12:30:18 PM PST by stylin19a (Golf is a game invented by the same people who think music comes out of a bagpipe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: stylin19a

“must be a law somewhere else, cause this ain’t covered under the Constitution Emoluments Clauses:”

That’s what I thought, then Lawrence Tribe(a POS) started using his creative imagination, while writing articles for the progressive media.

Tribe started talking about Trump hotels and not making any sense, so I stopped listening to the idiot.


43 posted on 03/13/2021 1:28:35 PM PST by unclebankster (Globalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: stylin19a
must be a law somewhere else, cause this ain’t covered under the Constitution Emoluments Clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

[Article] "The investigation focuses on Flynn’s acceptance of money from Russian and Turkish interests before joining the Trump administration, a potential violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. With few exceptions, U.S. officials, including retired service members like Flynn, are prohibited from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments. Flynn retired from the Army as a three-star general in 2014."

Even if there were a statiute law, such a law cannot change a provision of the constitution. It is not clear how General Flynn could be a United States officer under the Appointments Clause after his retirement from the Army. The reference to the constitution is almost certainly in error. They are almost certainly referring the Logan Act of 1799, an Act never used to prosecute anyone, and generally held to be unconstitutional or at least very dubious. It was created by the same Congress that produced the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. It remains codified as a Federal statute.

The below linked papers discuss "Officers of the United States" in hair-splitting legal detail, and also touch upon the emoluments clause.

https://www.justice.gov/file/451191/download

Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause

A position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government and that is “continuing” is a federal office subject to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. A person who would hold such a position must be properly made an “Officer[] of the United States” by being appointed pursuant to the procedures specified in the Appointments Clause.

April 16, 2007

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSELS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

50 pp. PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf

Who are “Officers of the United States”?

Jennifer L. Mascott*
70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming)
(February 2017 Draft)

74 pp. PDF

Below is the current codified version of the Logan Act of 1799, 1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. 953 (30 Jan. 1799). It states it applies to any citizens of the United States, but its constitutionality is highly questionable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

18 U.S. Code § 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. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 744; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act

Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney
March 11, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33265

14 pp. PDF

The discussion of whether the act is currently viable may hinge on the fact that, despite its having been law for more than 200 years, no one has been prosecuted for violating it. Its viability may also involve constitutional issues, such as freedom of speech and right to travel, mentioned above, since these constitutional issues appear not to have been litigated with respect to the Logan Act. However, the act still remains law, and its viability should likely not be summarily dismissed.

Conclusion

Although it appears that there has never been a prosecution under the Logan Act, there have been several judicial references to it, indicating that the act has not been forgotten and that it is at least a potential point of challenge that has been used against anyone who without authority allegedly interferes in the foreign relations of the United States. There have been efforts to repeal the act, one of the most significant occurring in the late 1970s. For example, Senator Edward Kennedy proposed in the 95th Congress to delete the Logan Act from the bill to amend the United States criminal code. Senator James Allen insisted on reenacting the act in exchange for promising not to prolong debate over the bill, and Senator Kennedy agreed to this. However, since the House was unable to consider the criminal reform bill in the 95th Congress, the possibility of deleting the act in a conference committee was eliminated. In early 2015, renewed interest in the act resulted from a letter sent to Iran by 47 U.S. Senators. It is possible that this interest will result in congressional consideration of whether the act should be repealed or retained.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/5th-congress/session-3/c5s3ch1.pdf

The Logan Act of January 30, 1799, 1 Statutes-at-Large 613.

ACTS OF THE FIFTH CONGRESS
OF THE
UNITED STATES,

Passed at the third session, which was begun and held at the City of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the third day of December, 1798, and ended on the third day of March, 1799.

JOHN ADAMS, President; THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate; JAMES Ross, President of the Senate pro tempore, from March 2d, 1799; JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

STATUTE III.

CHAPTER I.—An Act for the punishment of certain Crimes therein specified.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any person, being a citizen of the United States, whether he be actually resident, or abiding within the United States, or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the government of the United States, directly or indirectly, commence, or carry on, any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or any officer or agent thereof, with an 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 defeat the measures of the government of the United States; or if any person, being a citizen of, or resident within the United States, and not duly authorized, shall counsel, advise, aid or assist in any such correspondence, with intent, as aforesaid, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months, nor exceeding three years: Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to abridge the right of individual citizens of the United States to apply, by themselves, or their lawful agents, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for the redress of any injuries in relation to person or property which such individuals may have sustained from such government, or any of its agents, citizens or subjects.

APPROVED, January 30, 1799.


53 posted on 03/13/2021 2:43:02 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson