Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
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.

Errr... do you not know much about the seperation of powers in the United States? The Executive Branch ALWAYS determines if someone should be charged for anything. That's their job as they are responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States.

That doesn't mean that someone is guilty or violative of whatever the DoJ seeks to charge them with. In fact I think any court would throw out such an idiotic charge. There is a reason the Logan Act hasn't been used.

[DinoDoc]

I can think of a few times it should have been used but yeah you're right Imran.

[Berzerker]

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.

Logan was a private citizen, not Speaker of the House.

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.

It did exclude them, you're forgetting the Act refers to "the United States" and Pelosi is a representative of the United States. Where does it say anything about the Prez? Why aint the Prez a private citizen if Pelosi is a private citizen?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Berzerker


It did exclude them, you're forgetting the Act refers to "the United States" and Pelosi is a representative of the United States. Where does it say anything about the Prez? Why aint the Prez a private citizen if Pelosi is a private citizen?

The language states any citizen "without authority of the United States". I highly doubt a single solitary representative or senator constitutes authority of the United States. Note the distinction between "representative of" and having "authority of". A single representative does not embody the entirety of the will of the US as that person has not seen the scrutiny of a nation wide electoral mandate merely a local mandate that they represent. OTOH if a representative (speaker, senator, or otherwise) were given a majority legislative referendum to do so in defiance of POTUS there likely would be ample reason to say that person has some amount of "authority of the US" by virtue of the perogatives of the legislative. Now one could argue that Pelosi as consequence of being speaker has already been given that cart blanche majority referendum but seeing as this is rather new precedent for a speaker to undertake I would submit her being voted speaker was done without these types of activities being entertained.

Seeing as the executive fussed but did not out and out say no to Pelosi this issue is moot.

[DinoDoc]

Why should thy do her the favor of keeping her from making an ass out of herself?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Admiral
Yes, but the State Dept is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution.

It is. Article II, Section 2 references the President's authority to "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,"

The authority to create executive departments is granted to Congress, which created the original five departments in 1789, as the final form of the Constitution was being agreed upon.

It would have been assinine to list the departments by name, as it would then take an amendment to the Constitution any time a department was renamed or created, otherwise the President would have no authority to compel any action or accountability from the exective departments not listed.

The Department of Foreign Affairs was changed to Department of State in 1789, Department of War was changed to Department of Defense, and the only executive departments created at the time of the adoption (not ratification) of the Consitution were the Departments of War, Foreign Affairs and Treasury, and the Offices of the Attorney General and Postmaster General. Those existed as departments under the Confederation, and were recreated by the first Congress convened after ratification.

If you listed those departments by name, instead of by category, you're looking at something like 17 or 18 additional Amendments to the Constitution simply to give the President authority over executive departments created or renamed by Congress.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should thy do her the favor of keeping her from making an ass out of herself?

You're right. They've never done that for this President in the last six years, two months and 17 days, so why would they bother for a newly installed Speaker of the House?

[DinoDoc]

But I thought the Democrats were supposed to show us a better way? Now we have pork ladden bills used as bribes and people screwing up foreign policy. Where's the difference?

[Berzerker]

The language states any citizen "without authority of the United States". I highly doubt a single solitary representative or senator constitutes authority of the United States.

The Logan Act was written because of a private citizen, not because of a Speaker of the House. She is not a citizen, she is an officer of the United States just like the Prez.

A single representative does not embody the entirety of the will of the US as that person has not seen the scrutiny of a nation wide electoral mandate merely a local mandate that they represent.

No one represents the entirety of the will of the US, but the Speaker was elected by the House, the people's House.

Now one could argue that Pelosi as consequence of being speaker has already been given that cart blanche majority referendum but seeing as this is rather new precedent for a speaker to undertake I would submit her being voted speaker was done without these types of activities being entertained.

And Bush's activities were entertained? Hardly, so that means, according to your argument, Bush cant talk to other countries. And she isn't the first member of Congress to visit foreign countries we dont get along too well with. You presume the Prez and only the Prez "is" the authority of the United States, I dont even see the Prez mentioned.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
But I thought the Democrats were supposed to show us a better way? Now we have pork ladden bills used as bribes and people screwing up foreign policy. Where's the difference?

A different set of pigs at the trough.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Berzerker

And Bush's activities were entertained? Hardly, so that means, according to your argument, Bush cant talk to other countries. And she isn't the first member of Congress to visit foreign countries we dont get along too well with. You presume the Prez and only the Prez "is" the authority of the United States, I dont even see the Prez mentioned.

No I distinguish "authority of the US" from "representative of the US". POTUS by virtue of going through a national election is granted the authority of the US in contrast to a local elected official who has not received a nationwide mandate.

I gave an exception that allowed for authority of the US to exist such that if a plurality of the legislative wished a representative to speak on the behalf of the legislative/people then that likely would also pass muster. But what I do argue is that no singular representative/senator without such a plurality has the authority to speak for the US. (I certainly was given no opportunity to vote on whether they or an oppositional candidate should or should not have such powers. In contrast, in a national election I certainly knew POTUS was given such powers and just as 300 million other Americans was given the opportunity to vote accordingly thus accordingly empowering the candidate I voted for to be that "authority of the US"). I would also argue that merely being speaker of the house is not a criterian for such a plurality as the act is such a new precedent that it wasn't otherwise thought to be a power of the speaker's role.

Capice?

[Berzerker]

No I distinguish "authority of the US" from "representative of the US". POTUS by virtue of going through a national election is granted the authority of the US in contrast to a local elected official who has not received a nationwide mandate.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Prez gets to decide what constitutes "the authority of the US" in exclusion of other branches of gov't? The Prez isn't even mentioned, so who or what is "the authority of the US"? Where in the Constitution does it say the Prez, by virtue of winning a national election, receives a nationwide mandate to set foreign policy? He cant do much of anything without Congress telling him what to do. He needs congressional instruction to become CinC (declaration of war) and he negotiates treaties on behalf of the Senate. Aside from ambassadors that still need congressional approval, the Prez is very limited as to what he can do. Where does it say only the Prez gets to talk to foreigners? Given that most foreign policy power belongs to Congress it just aint logical to say Congress cant even talk to other countries.

I gave an exception that allowed for authority of the US to exist such that if a plurality of the legislative wished a representative to speak on the behalf of the legislative/people then that likely would also pass muster. But what I do argue is that no singular representative/senator without such a plurality has the authority to speak for the US.

We're going nowhere with this. So I'll ask this question(s): if Pelosi was in Syria talking about possible changes to current trade regulations, would that violate the Logan Act? What if the Prez was in Syria talking about possible changes to trade regulations?
If Pelosi is a "citizen" wrt the Logan Act, is the Prez a citizen too?

[DanS]

The USA Today opines the same thing as the WaPo...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds

[MRT144]

kuciwalker, i love how your arrogance and sense of superiority failed when facts came to light. Facts definitely quiet the arrogant.

[Deity Dude]

The Logan act was written specificaaly to prevent any citizen from this type of behavior. Logan went on his trip to France on behalf of the Vice-President . At that time in American hisatory the Vice-President was the leader of the opposition parrty similiar to Pelosi's stature now. However the Vice-President was a federally ellected offivcial representing the United States, Pelosi only represents a district. Her job is to vote her district's will in the House.

The act was written to specifically prohibit people like Jefferson from going abroad and conducting a second foriegn policy. Now if the act prohibits Jefferson and his representatives it certainly would prohibit Pelosi.

But there are 2 issues that have to be met. The first is that she doesn't represent the United Sttateson this issue anymore than the president represent the House of Representatives or the Supremem Court. This is obvious from above.

The second issue is the purpose of the trip. To quote the USA Today artice:

"Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit." That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy."

That is what makes it a violation of the Logan Act.

The Executive Branch is in charge of the Foriegn Policy and US diplomacy. Congress decides whther or not to ratify a treaty he may have made, whether to fund his policies and in extreme cases whether or not to impeach him. But under the Logan Act, unless acting with the approval of the Executive Branch, it is illegal for ANY CITIZEN to engage in this behavior.

I gues you could say if they choose not to her charge her tey have given indirect approval and therefore there is no violation. But if charged and the evidence indicated that she carried on "negotiations" regarding foriegn policy she would be quilty.