Actually the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the sole power to negotiate treaties, and the Senate power to accept or squelch.
In regards to where “does it say they have authority”? You should look up the Law of Agency and Apparent or Implied Authority.
This is a bad precedent and if the Dems do it to a Pres. Cruz or Walker, or whoever, we will be hollering. Not good PR, and not effective for any purpose.
“You should look up the Law of Agency and Apparent or Implied Authority.”
And then what? Do you have a point to make? Are we supposed to guess what it is? Not interested.
I don’t know all the ins and outs. A general letter to the US public in the New York Times or something like that, would make the point nicely.
At least if Democrats did this they would be constitutional for a change.
Dems have already done it: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html
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?
We are not talking about negotiating treaties here. we are talking about CORRESPONDENCE — WRITING A LETTER.
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 ).
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?
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