Posted on 03/09/2015 8:22:20 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Just when you thought congressional Republicans couldn’t look any more like a troupe of treacherous clowns hellbent on circus-ifying anything President Obama tries to do, they pull another bag of tricks from the trunk of their tiny car.
On Monday, 47 Republican senators signed an open letter addressed to the “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on U.S. Senate letterhead. The correspondence basically indicated that Iran’s ongoing negotiations on its nuclear program with the Obama administration are an all but futile endeavor. The weirdest thing about the letter — other than the fact that it was written in the first place — is that it doesn’t address anything specific regarding Iran’s nuclear program. It advances no alternative proposals, it elucidates no conditions under which the GOP would assent to a deal of any kind, and thus, it offers no hope of resolving one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy challenges of the last 35 years.
You’d think considering the letter is official correspondence from Senate Republicans, it would’ve addressed specific leaders within the Iranian government such as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, or the members of the Guardian Council, but it does not. Regardless, the letter is unlike anything seen in recent memory. Not only does it explicitly attempt to undermine negotiations between the U.S. and Iran concerning the latter’s nuclear program, it’s written in an unbelievably condescending tone:
Never has a lesson in American civics been so patronizing, or nefarious for that matter. It’s ironic the GOP thinks Iran’s leaders need a primer in the U.S. Constitution, considering its 2008 presidential nominee had no idea as to which office in Iran actually holds ultimate power. (He still might not.)
No matter, the not very subtle implication here is that if any deal whatsoever is hammered out between Iran and the U.S., the Republicans will oppose it. Again, notice how the letter doesn’t explain the sort of agreement the GOP would accept. The reason for this is as depressing as it is ludicrous: No agreement between Iran and the U.S. is acceptable as far as the Republican Party and its de facto chief Iran strategist Benjamin Netanyahu are concerned. At least, none that involve Iran retaining a modicum of dignity as a sovereign state.
The senators’ letter is an unserious act of anti-diplomacy specifically designed to undermine the president’s efforts to conduct foreign affairs in his capacity as chief executive. As such, the correspondence tests the limits of the Logan Act, which reads in part,
“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.”
While the letter’s signatories are U.S. senators, that does not mean they have the “authority of the United States” as required by the law since when it comes to conducting foreign policy, the executive branch is the United States, taking into consideration the occasional “Advice and Consent of the Senate” as prescribed by the Constitution. However, this letter is neither advice, nor consent. It’s directly addressed to leaders of a foreign government presently involved in talks with the U.S., and it is designed to thwart those talks. Unless the senators were authorized by the president to address Iran’s leaders in this letter, a case can be made that 47 U.S. senators just violated a federal law that carries a prison term of up to three years.
Whether the law was broken or not, the fact remains that once again Republicans have shown themselves not only unfit to govern, but unwilling to govern, because governance sometimes means making agreements that don’t give you everything you want. That the vast majority of GOP senators have so publicly proclaimed their opposition to any deal that could ensure Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons is a travesty of foreign policy, a breach of custom, and possibly a felony.
Once upon a time, not only were Republicans open to nuclear agreements with archenemies, they actually signed them, as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did. Reagan’s approach was simple: “Trust, but verify.” Thirty years later, it’s a shame Republicans can’t follow his example.
47 Republicans with a pair of balls is what’s needed in this country. We need more like these folks
“Regardless, the letter is unlike anything seen in recent memory.”
Must have a very short, selective memory.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html
“47 Republicans May Have Just Broken the Law By Writing An Outrageous Letter To Iran”
But it is okay when the democRATs do it?
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html
Dems have already done it: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html
I remember when this happened, and was irate. They were absolutely wrong!!!! Don’t sink to their level.
From the article you posted, it seems that Gingrich had the same reaction that I did.
‘’This letter,’’ Mr. Gingrich wrote, ‘’clearly violates the constitutional separation of powers. It’s at best unwise, and at worst illegal.’’
When Reagan and Bush were President, Democrats traveled the world to denigrate the President's actions. There was no press coverage.
Someone just sent me this link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953
THE LOGAN ACT:
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.
__________________________
The next obvious question is this — what does “without authority of the United States” mean?
Are we to understand it to mean ONLY the executive branch is given the authority to correspond with foreign governments?
Is that what the framers of the constitution intended? a MUTE Senate when it comes to foreign correspondence?
Someone just sent me this link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953
THE LOGAN ACT:
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.
__________________________
The next obvious question is this — what does “without authority of the United States” mean?
Are we to understand it to mean ONLY the executive branch is given the authority to correspond with foreign governments?
Is that what the framers of the constitution intended? a MUTE Senate when it comes to foreign correspondence?
We are not talking about negotiating treaties here. we are talking about CORRESPONDENCE — WRITING A LETTER.
What law specifically prevents senators from sending an open letter to a foreign power explaining U S constitutional law?
RE: This is a bad precedent and if the Dems do it to a Pres. Cruz or Walker, or whoever, we will be hollering.
This so called bad precedence HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE in the past. dems wrote letters to the Nicaraguan government without consulting President Reagan.
There are no “IF’s” anymore.
Now. let’s talk about punishments....
Let’s say that these 47 Senators should be punished. Well and good. We then should apply the law equally. All signatories of past letters to foreign governments by=passing the President should also be punished ( if they are still alive ).
Uh, no.
GOP senators send warning on Iran deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3265841/posts
GOP senators to Iran: Nuclear deal needs Congress sign-off to last
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3265883/posts
WTF???
FMCDH(BITS)
Doesn’t apply to federal legislators doing their job, as conceded by the State Department in the 1970s. If it did apply to legislators, it would have been repealed long ago, or there would have been many, many prosecutions.
It is obvious the Senate has a pen now as well. Maybe they have a phone too.
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.
SEE HERE:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
It can be argued that Senate, as an elected body has MORE AUTHORITY to speak for the United States of America than Jess Jackson.
So, why is Jess Jackson not in jail?
The law of “because I say so.”
FROM Wikipedia on the Logan act:
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
_________________________________________________
“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 [Logan Act], 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.
Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn....” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.”
_______________________________________________________
SOURCE: DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750
I think its hysterical. The lefties are really in a snit. How dare the Congress of the United States exert its authority. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.