Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Berzerker]

Has anyone ever heardof the Logan Act.

What Pelosi did is punishable by fine or 3 years imprisonment.

Logan Act below:

"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.

Pelosi is the United States wrt that act, which prohibits [private] citizens from dealing with foreign governments in such manner...

[Deity Dude]

Admiral I'm not gonna cite hundreds of interpretations of this act that says you are wrong. And it is true that no one has ever been charged under it. But it is obvious that it was written specifically for this type of situation. Logan was went on behalf of Jefferson who was Vice President and who was in opposition to Adams policy.

The whole point of the act, as passed by Congress and made part of the Law of the United States, whether or not you like it, is that the Executive Branch is responsible for foriegn policy.

Pelosi has a right to go on a fact finding mission, assuming the Executive branch issues a passport and there is no law forbiding travel to that country. She is not allowed to deliver a fictitous offer from Israel or negotiate on behalf of the United States or undermine/contradict US foriegn policy.

She can pretty much do what she wants in the House of Reps but she can not negotiate her own seperate foriegn policy in Syria.

I agree others have done things like this before. But just because someone has broken the law and was not charged doesn't mean that the law is no longer valid.

Aside from the law, think about it in a practical sense.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Admiral
The point is, there are really no valid constitutional criticisms of Pelosi's trip. Which is not to say that there are no valid criticisms of Pelosi's trip. There are.

Duh, it's entirely within her rights, as I said. It's politically inappropriate.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Pelosi is the United States wrt that act, which prohibits [private] citizens from dealing with foreign governments in such manner...

No she isn't. It specifically says "any citizen" This act was well thought out at the time and highly debated. The words were chosen carefully. If they had meant that it was OK for government officials to negotiate seperate and contradictory from the president it would have excluded them. There would have been a provision stating this act does not apply to Congress if that was the intent. As I stated earlier, Logan went on behalf of the Vice President at the time the act was written. (at that time the VP was the person with the 2nd most Electoral votes to the president)

As I said, no one has ever been charged under the act and there are a few scholars who feel it might be unconstitutional, but it is the current law and its meaning is unambiguous. Whether or not it is enforced.

[Admiral]

The following is an assessment of the state department:

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, 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.

As has been established, Pelosi has done nothing unconstitutional. The Logan act thus does not apply.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think it's any more appropriate for the government to be able to restrict the travel and communications of Congressmen (with a few obvious exceptions) than for Pelosi to try and conduct her own diplomacy.

[Kuciwalker]

And no one has claimed Pelosi's visit was unconstitutional.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Admiral
The following is an assessment of the state department:


As has been established, Pelosi has done nothing unconstitutional. The Logan act thus does not apply.

Your post almost proves my point. The Executive Branch made the decision that it was OK and validated thier passports - at that time it was illegal for US citizens to travel to Cuba. They could not of just decided to go there on there own legally. They had to ask the Executive branch for permission, tell them what thier intent was and have it approved by the state department.

I don't lmow the specifics of that trip but the point is they had to get permission from the Executive Branch in order not to be in violation of the Logan act. In another words, if you have the Executive Branch's approval thna you are acting as a legal representative of the United States, if not that you are in violation of the LOgan Act. These Senators asked for a ruling from the Executiver Branch and wre approved.

The other issue is the purpose of the trip. If a senator wer to go to Pakistan because thier state was invilved in Commerce with them and they went there on a fact finding mission that would not be an issue. If they went to Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden and negotiate with him - that would be something totally different.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Your post almost proves my point. The Executive Branch made the decision that it was OK and validated thier passports - at that time it was illegal for US citizens to travel to Cuba. They could not of just decided to go there on there own legally. They had to ask the Executive branch for permission, tell them what thier intent was and have it approved by the state department.

I don't lmow the specifics of that trip but the point is they had to get permission from the Executive Branch in order not to be in violation of the Logan act.

And that might be relevant if the administration had in any way moved to not validate Pelosi's passport. It didn't. Further, and I could be wrong here, but are there any restrictions on visiting Syria?

More importantly, you're misreading the passage. It is not saying that the visit was legal because the Senator's passports were validated. It is saying that the visit was legal, and that the executive branch didn't undertake any action to dispute that legality.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

The other issue is the purpose of the trip. If a senator wer to go to Pakistan because thier state was invilved in Commerce with them and they went there on a fact finding mission that would not be an issue. If they went to Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden and negotiate with him - that would be something totally different.

There are no constitutional restrictions on a member of the legislative branch negotiating settlements between third parties. And obviously, your second example is entirely unrelated to the purpose of Pelosi's visit.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And no one has claimed Pelosi's visit was unconstitutional.

I agree. I claimed it was in violation of the Logan act.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't think it's any more appropriate for the government to be able to restrict the travel and communications of Congressmen (with a few obvious exceptions) than for Pelosi to try and conduct her own diplomacy.

I don't think marijuana should be any more illegal than alcohol. It really doesn't matter what we think. I was just telling you about the law.

[Admiral]

Logan's act cannot apply to members of Congress, according to the state department interpretation, unless they are already violating the constitution. She isn't. Case closed. I'm out.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Admiral


There are no constitutional restrictions on a member of the legislative branch negotiating settlements between third parties. And obviously, your second example is entirely unrelated to the purpose of Pelosi's visit.

There are no Constitutional restrictions on lots of things. But Congress still passes laws that restrict things. It isn't a matter of whether or not it is spelled out in the Constitution. It's illegal by statute. You might be able to argue that if someone were charged and the Supreme Court decided to hear the case that they might find the statute unconstitutional. But until that happens it is the law and therefore illegal by statute.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Admiral
Logan's act cannot apply to members of Congress, according to the state department interpretation, unless they are already violating the constitution. She isn't. Case closed. I'm out.

First of all show me where you got that from.

Second of all, if some State Department interpreted the law that way for a specific case that does not mean every future State Department has to come up with the same determination in every future case.

The fact that you said the State Deparment determined... shows you agree with me that it is up to the Executive Branch to determine if someone should be charged under this act. If charged it would go to a court to determine if the evidence supported the charge which it obviously does. Finally, if found guilty she could challenge the constitutionality of the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Admiral
The point is, there are really no valid constitutional criticisms of Pelosi's trip. Which is not to say that there are no valid criticisms of Pelosi's trip. There are.

Bingo. I think most of the folks here slamming Pelosi are doing so because they think she isn't doing anything of value, not because they think she's violating or overreaching on the Constitution.