Posted on 03/14/2015 6:07:20 PM PDT by Kaslin
In liberal land, Speaker of the House John Boehner is guilty of it. Sen. Tom Cotton and the 47 Senate Republicans signatories of his letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran outlining the constitutional dynamics of our government are surely guilty of it: violating the Logan Act.
So, what is the Logan Act? Besides a brief mention in the 2007 films "Charlie Wilson’s War" starring Tom Hanks, the law prohibits private citizens from engaging in unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. The impetus for this law dates back to 1798. Dr. George Logan, a state legislator, traveled to France in order to secure an end to the Quasi-War, the undeclared, unofficial war between France and America. It was mostly relegated to sea warfare, but this conflict also gave birth to another set of horrific laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts. The latter would almost certainly be found unconstitutional today, but that’s for another time.
Here’s the text of the law:
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.
Right now, close to 300,000 people have signed a White House petition that supports prosecuting Sen. Cotton and the other signatories for violating the Logan Act over the Iran letter. It's "treason," say the creators of the petition.
So, did Sen. Cotton, Speaker Boehner, and Senate Republicans violate the Logan Act? No, says Charles Cooke at the National Review:
Indeed, one almost has to feel embarrassed by the scale of the petitioners’ credulity. For a start, the Logan Act almost certainly does not apply to open letters that are penned by representatives from the Senate — which body, we might remember, enjoys a constitutionally enumerated role within the nation’s foreign policy. And, even if it did apply, the inevitable legal challenges would swiftly prevail. In a widely cited analysis, American University’s Steve Vladeck has proposed both that the act is “unconstitutionally vague” and that it would be “unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech.” Brazile’s bluster to one side, it is no accident that, in its entire 216-year existence, the measure has never been used to convict anyone. It will not be used in 2015.
Over at the Huffington Post, Monica Bauer notes bluntly that she has not seen “a single Constitutional Law professor say this is a real thing,” and “for good reason.” That reason: It isn’t. Instead, Bauer suggests, the charge is being drummed up as “click bait for liberals” by the more irresponsible voices within “left-wing media” — that is, by cynics who have not set out to “educate or help,” but only “to raise money.” Bauer is correct, of course.
Law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in his blog–the Volokh Conspiracy–, which is featured in the Washington Post that the Logan Act is also constitutionally questionable. He admittedly said is not an expert with this law, so he asked three of his colleagues Professor Steve Vladeck of American University, Professor Michael Dorff of Cornell, and Professor Marty Lederman of Georgetown to offer their input.
Besides addressing the constitutional question and how members of Congress didn’t violate the Logan Act with the letter, Vladeck also brought up how the legal doctrine “desuetude," which probably kills any debate regarding the application of this law. In short, if a law isn’t successfully invoked in the courts after an extended period of time, it becomes virtually inapplicable [emphasis mine]:
[1.] [Under the Act,] the citizen must act “without authority of the United States.” Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 … would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” … Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that … courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress.
[2.] It seems quite likely, as one district court suggested in passing in 1964, that the terms of the statute are both unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech….
[3.] [T]he Logan Act has never been successfully used (indeed, the last indictment under the Act was in … 1803). Although most assume this is just a practical obstacle to a contemporary prosecution, it’s worth reminding folks about “desuetude” — the legal doctrine pursuant to which statutes (especially criminal ones) may lapse if they are never enforced (interested readers should check out a fantastic 2006 student note on the subject in the Harvard Law Review). If ever there was a case in which desuetude could be a successful defense to a federal criminal prosecution, I have to think that this would be it.
Professor Dorff touched upon the allegation that Rep. Nancy Pelosi violated the act when she visited Syria in 2007, while Professor Lederman offer his thoughts as well. But, all, directly or indirectly, noted that the law has fallen into the desuetude category. Pelosi will never be indicted even if she did violate the act in 2007; Dorff lays out her hypothetical defense as well. And the First Amendment concerns could be applied, wrote Lederman but are irrelevant because the law has never been really used; therefore, desuetude is referenced again.
So, liberals clamoring about the Logan Act, STOP! Just … just stop.
Point & laugh --> MT @donnabrazile: File charges against the Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine nuclear deal— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 12, 2015
The Logan Act requires such a strict set of specifications for prosecution which is why it’s never been enforced.
Which Federal act was it that sitting Sen. 0bama violated when he went to Kenya in 2006 to campaign for Raila Odinga? Is there a statute of limitations on that?
While its fun to watch liberals play pretend patriot, they also fail to acknowledge that millions of us support Tom Cotton and the other signatories.
If we only had a body that is responsible for treaties. Wait. We do. It’s called the Senate.
If they want to talk Logan Act, talk to Obama about his 2008 talks with Tehran via “secret back channel”...
If the petition made no mention of the Logan act it would still have 300,000 signatures from liberals.
The Logan act only applies to US citizens so Obama is immune.
“Right now, close to 300,000 people have signed a White House petition......”
Arrogant, smarmy Democrats taking advantage of the ignorance they have instilled in our society over the past several generations, and the reason they instilled said ignorance all wrapped up in one presentation.
Ignore them, It’ll go away
As we should
See my tagline about the ignorant that voted to reelect that arrogant pos. I would not be surprised if many of them signed the petition
All the Pubbies did was remind them that without full Congressional due process for a treaty, Obama’s Executive Orders end when his term ends. That doesn’t undermine anything, unless the Rats were hoping the Iranians didn’t understand what they were being offered. I wonder if the Pelosi hag was telling the Iranians that they’d have to sign the agreement to see what was in it, and she’s pissed because those mean Republicans told then that no matter what is in it, it has a limited shelf life. “Drats,” spouts the bitch, “foiled again!”
So, have some corrupt Holder prosecutor try to prosecute them. Go ahead, make my day.
I wonder how many of those are real people, or just lists on the hard drive a few dozen Democrat nerd activists
Not a road knowledgeable Dems want to go down. Treason has no statute of limitations.
So, let’s see:
If Cruz takes office in 2017 (which is likely to happen), and a Democrat in Congress goes on a “fact finding” trip to another country without EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS from the White House, then that Democrat should be ARRESTED upon his arrival.
If it’s a group of Democrats, then there’s a good chance that we can pass some USEFUL LEGISLATION while those Democrats are wasting away in jail for their ILLEGAL transgressions.
All sounds good to me.
Obama went to Iraq too. He apparently talked to some government officials about the Status of Forces Agreement. He apparently asked the Prime Minister to hold off signing it until after the elections in the U.S.! He said something like: “The Bush Administration was in disarray”, or something like that. I couldn’t believe he would do such an underhanded thing, but he did! Then he and his campaign people tried to deny it, but they all lied, the Prime Minister even said Obama did say that! It was disgusting, and lied about it!
Isn’t the most infamous violater of the Logan Act John F’n Kerry? Even before you get to the fact it was also treason.
A family affair?
Malik Obama (Barack’s bosom buddy half-brother), is Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), a Sudanese government-sponsored organization whose mission is to spread Wahhabist Islam across the African continent Wahhabism is the ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist branch of Islam practiced by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and segments of the Taliban.
Obama’s puppet Lois Lerner backdated the grant of tax exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) by 38 months. Malik Obama formed the foundation with two others in 2008 and never filed an application for tax exemption. (Follow the money.) Only when a watchdog group noticed did Lois Lerner spring into action.
Wally Shoebat has documented the Barack-Malik story.
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.