Obama violated the Logan Act?

[mark beiser]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m


From the Logan Act:

§ 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.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, even though there have been clear violations of it over the years, but it is still interesting...

[razorwit]

It wouldn't be the first time the accusation has been made.
McCain sent a delegation to Georgia recently.
Were they attempting to negotiate with the Russians or simply there to observe what was going on?
Others include Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson.
Gen. Patreus has made no claim that Obama attempted to affect troop withdrawal delays.
There is a distinct difference between asking status questions about conditions and trying to affect some type of change in policy.

[acmanko]

He's a Senator and maybe, althought doubtful the next President of the US. That is authority. Same with McCain. Both are in authority and can negotiate without directives.

[mrs reb77]

You are wrong, they can not regardless of being senators.

Also, the story the o.p. linked stated that Obama was trying to delay troop drawdowns until the next administration. Sounds like he figures that will be him and he could take credit.

[acmanko]

You are wrong, they can not regardless of being senators.

Also, the story the o.p. linked stated that Obama was trying to delay troop drawdowns until the next administration. Sounds like he figures that will be him and he could take credit.
No I'm not. what in your esteemed opinion constitutes authority. Remember the Congress had to pass a resolution to prosecute the Iraq war.

Congress passes laws(that includes Senators) and the President executes them;:p

[razorwit]

The OP link REPORTED that an Iraqi claimed that Obama was attempting to delay troop withdrawals.
No such claim was made by Gen. Patreus who Obama met with as well.

And AC, you need to read the Logan Act.
It was signed into law around the time you were born and does not allow political candidates or others to negotiate on behalf of this country.
The only authority Obama and McCain possess is with their staffers and Congressional pages.

[mrs reb77]

Just what we need, 100 senators and 435 representatives all running around the world making their own treaties and representations of what the United States of America will/can do.

Oh, wait a minute, that's pretty much why they DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. :rolleyes:

[hearthman]

Matters of State are handled by a State Dept. If a Senator doesn't like what he sees abroad, he could contact the State Dept. for a briefing then make his thoughts known to them so THEY can communicate with foreign governments once it has been discussed as official policy of the country. When a Lone Ranger goes out and blabs to a foreign government, they are substituting their beliefs for the US Gov't. They tend to disrupt all previous discussions and negotiations such as Jesse, Nancy and Jimmy have done. They get too big for their britches. They should go to jail and everyone else told to channel through the State Dept. or else. We have allowed politicians to usurp power. It's time we take it back.

[mark beiser]

He's a Senator <snip> Same with McCain. Both are in authority and can negotiate without directives.

They are both part of the legislative branch of government, which has no authority whatsoever, and it is illegal for them to negotiate anything with representatives of another country, or otherwise directly interfere with US foreign policy.

That authority belongs to the executive branch alone. The Department of State is part of the executive branch of government.

[acmanko]

So, do tell why every Republican and almost every Democrat US Senator have made trips to Iraq. Again , we have blind being led by those who cannot see.

[acmanko]

The OP link REPORTED that an Iraqi claimed that Obama was attempting to delay troop withdrawals.
No such claim was made by Gen. Patreus who Obama met with as well.

And AC, you need to read the Logan Act.
It was signed into law around the time you were born and does not allow political candidates or others to negotiate on behalf of this country.
The only authority Obama and McCain possess is with their staffers and Congressional pages. How do you know when I was born. stop
The Monroe Doctrine explicitly state that American citizens can go anywhere in the Western Hemisphere without a passport. stop
Laws have little meaning when one law interfers with another. stop

[mrs reb77]

So, do tell why every Republican and almost every Democrat US Senator have made trips to Iraq. Again , we have blind being led by those who cannot see.

They can 'visit'. The can 'observe'. They just can't try to DO anything.

Very simple really. You can watch the show, you can come home and report on it but you cannot join in.

[acmanko]

They can 'visit'. The can 'observe'. They just can't try to DO anything.

Very simple really. You can watch the show, you can come home and report on it but you cannot join in. Thats about the most ridiculous statement you've made.:o

[mrs reb77]

And exactly why is it ridiculous?
European, Mexican, Canadian, Japanese (etc, etc, etc) lawmakers can visit here any time they like but they can't try to negotiate policy for/with us for their countries. If a politician is not on official State Department business they're welcome to visit they just aren't welcome to 'participate'.

If you don't get it I guess you just don't get it. :eek:

[mrs reb77]

How do you know when I was born. stop
The Monroe Doctrine explicitly state that American citizens can go anywhere in the Western Hemisphere without a passport. stop
Laws have little meaning when one law interfers with another. stop

It's called a profile. You have one. Unless you lied. January 15, 1954

[acmanko]

It's called a profile. You have one. Unless you lied. January 15, 1954 You expect me to remember something like a profile with caos running supreme today?:confused:

[mrs reb77]

Yup! You're responsible for it, you need to know what it says! ;)

Take one of the calming blue pills now, you've had just a tad too much caffeine. :D

[acmanko]

Yup! You're responsible for it, you need to know what it says! ;)

Take one of the calming blue pills now, you've had just a tad too much caffeine. :D My pills are white, and viagra doesn't calm me down.

[mrs reb77]

They should color code pills--blue should be calming!

[acmanko]

They should color code pills--blue should be calming! they do calm the lucky ladies.

[razorwit]

How do you know when I was born. stop
The Monroe Doctrine explicitly state that American citizens can go anywhere in the Western Hemisphere without a passport. stop
Laws have little meaning when one law interfers with another. stop

Are you deaf, dumb and blind?
The fact that they travel there has no significance at all in the matter.
They simply can do nothing more than inquire about conditions that concern them. They cannot attempt any type of negotiation.
Read the Logan Act and stop acting like a spoiled infant that can't have their way when they're told no.;)

[acmanko]

Here is what it entails


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.[5]

[razorwit]

Thank you.
These senators have already been briefed on what they can and cannot do with regard to their visits.
They have no authority to negotiate when they visit foreign countries.

[acmanko]

Thank you.
These senators have already been briefed on what they can and cannot do with regard to their visits.
They have no authority to negotiate when they visit foreign countries.


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.


did you read this

[mrs reb77]

But, they have no legislative duties IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
They can gather information and return with it but they cannot engage in negotiations or other 'STATE' relations with foreign powers or governments.

Do you actually think it would be kosher to have a whole slew of Senators and Representatives (not to mention the 9 supreme court justices) running willy nilly all over the world trying to change or make U.S. policy in foreign countries?

Now, you know you don't, just admit it and stop shirring the stit.

[mrs reb77]

Why didn't you quote this section from wiki:

There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. [6]

[acmanko]

Why didn't you quote this section from wiki:

There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. [6]
because its irrelevant. the question was did Obama violate the Act. A member of Congress cannot . simple . end of story

[mrs reb77]

You can read right? Why be so obtuse on this issue. A member of congress is not nor ever has been in the Executive arm of government. Read the Logan Act again.

The President (executive powers) alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

There. In black on white. You are, yet one more time, wrong.

But what is new? :rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

Obama also violated another Logan act. That would be Logan's Run. Obama should never have run. Even he said so; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU&feature=related