Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Sun Mar 15, 2015, 06:19 PM Mar 2015

Poll: Should the 47 Republican Senators who signed onto the Iraq letter [View all]

be prosecuted?

and just to make it clear where I stand, I think it would be disastrous; precipitating a constitutional crisis.

In the past half century, it's largely been democrats who have been threatened by 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.[10]

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.[2]

In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it.

In June 2007, Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would prohibit then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from drawing on Federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act.[11] The amendment was not adopted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act


17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
yes
12 (71%)
no
5 (29%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
51 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sigh NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #1
expressive but hardly elucidating cali Mar 2015 #6
No. I will add their moves which should not be separated from the invite to Netanyahu Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #2
You may be right, but Blue_In_AK Mar 2015 #3
I'm pretty much w/ you on that point.Repubs have pushed the limits of legality and respect regarding Panich52 Mar 2015 #46
Of course I meant banksters, not bannisters. Blue_In_AK Mar 2015 #48
A lame duck President directing an unpopular Attorney General to indict half the Senate. name not needed Mar 2015 #4
Absolutely yes! avebury Mar 2015 #5
So if it was say 47 dems who wrote a letter cali Mar 2015 #7
But it wasn't 47 dems that wrote a letter to Iran. People can pretend that is an issue Rex Mar 2015 #9
But we're not at war with Iran, and the Logan Act is unconstitutional. eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #10
We are at war with their neighbor did you forget? And the letter can have untold Rex Mar 2015 #12
Again, we're not at war with Iran, GGJohn Mar 2015 #14
Right. Nice try. Again. Rex Mar 2015 #15
Right. Nice try. Again, GGJohn Mar 2015 #19
See post #22 Rex Mar 2015 #23
See post #19. GGJohn Mar 2015 #24
yeah. right. this is about defending the 47 republicans. Fail. Again cali Mar 2015 #20
I know it is. Thanks for admitting it. Rex Mar 2015 #22
gee. you seem not to understand simple English. cali Mar 2015 #26
That is why I sighed...real clear to me too NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #27
We were as much "at war" with the Sandanistas when the Dear Comandante letter onenote Mar 2015 #50
ack. that you think that, is frightening. so the dems who were vocal in opposition cali Mar 2015 #11
Vocal? Did 47 dems send a letter to Saddam Hussein trying to undermine Bush in Iraq? Rex Mar 2015 #13
I'm simply asking you to reflect on a hypothetical that is most certainly not cali Mar 2015 #17
There is a HUGE difference between trying to undermine the POTUS during negotiations with Iran Rex Mar 2015 #21
You now think you can speak for the rest of the world? wow. cali Mar 2015 #25
You sling that word traitor rather loosly. eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #33
Bonehead moves seem to be consistently avebury Mar 2015 #28
I can get your frustrated and your perspective is at least in part informed by your living in cali Mar 2015 #34
But it pisses people off to know that their tax dollars are avebury Mar 2015 #38
As another member said, GGJohn Mar 2015 #8
Like, like, like Avebury's comment. kajsa williams Mar 2015 #49
The Logan Act is a red herring These senators likely have full immunity under the Speech and Debate tritsofme Mar 2015 #16
thanks. cali Mar 2015 #18
yes - it would show the repugs that we can't be pushed around samsingh Mar 2015 #29
No not really but it is nice to watch the bastards squirm. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #30
squirm? i hardly think so. onenote Mar 2015 #39
Pelosi: My trip to Syria in 2007 was nothing like the GOP's Iran letter NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #31
be traded to Iran? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #32
You have a major one-letter typo in the title cpwm17 Mar 2015 #35
I see something like this, and I think YarnAddict Mar 2015 #36
Like the Netanyahu speech, the letter was a PR stunt that blew up in their faces. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #37
Yup, as the saying goes, GGJohn Mar 2015 #41
Look, the repubs IMPEACHED! Clinton for a BJ. BillZBubb Mar 2015 #40
And when it's thrown out of court as unconstitutional, then what? eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #45
This is politics. It doesn't matter what the courts do. BillZBubb Mar 2015 #47
Doesn't make any difference to me customerserviceguy Mar 2015 #42
RW talking points about Nancy Pelosi. Kingofalldems Mar 2015 #43
uh, no. I posted a wiki article about the Logan Act and how it's been used to make a point cali Mar 2015 #51
Pass. Fake poll in my opinion. Kingofalldems Mar 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Poll: Should the 47 Repu...