Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Executive Branch is in charge of the Foriegn Policy

Has been already demonstrated false. Stop spreading falsehoods in your Crusade.

And, as I said, there is a reason the Logan Act has never been used, even though this sort of thing has happened in the past (as referenced above, Speaker Wright's trip). Most likely because it wouldn't stand muster... recall that the government that passed the Logan Act also passed the Alien & Sedition Acts and I'm not sure anyone today believes those would stand if still around (in that case, the Democratic-Republicans did not renew it after the expiry date).

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The Executive Branch is in charge of the Foriegn Policy

Has been already demonstrated false. Stop spreading falsehoods in your Crusade.

You really should take a civics lesson, you obviously have no clue what the various responsibilities of the various branches of gevernment are..

Congress' powers in this area are Treaty ratification, declaration of war, funding, oversight, approval of nominees for various diplomatic positions, symbolic resolutions and in dramatic cases impeachment.

BTW I am not on a crusade. I was just reading the 4 pages of debate and was surprised no one had mentioned this statute that I learned about in 7th grade history.

[Ramo]

The US code is littered with laws that would never stand a serious constitutional challenge (i.e. the Espionage Act). The reason why they're still on the books is that no Admin would be idiotic enough to use them, and are therefore never challenged in the courts. The Logan Act is utterly irrelevant from a legal sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
You really should take a civics lesson, you obviously have no clue what the various responsibilities of the various branches of gevernment are..

Congress' powers in this area are Treaty ratification, declaration of war, funding, oversight, approval of nominees for various diplomatic positions, symbolic resolutions and in dramatic cases impeachment.

BTW I am not on a crusade. I was just reading the 4 pages of debate and was surprised no one had mentioned this statute that I learned about in 7th grade history.

I've taken plenty of civics lessons, along with plenty of Constitutional Law classes. I can assure you that it would never pass muster if brought against Pelosi.

And obviously you completely underestimate Congress' powers in foriegn affairs and ignore the history where Congressional leaders have been at the forefront of foriegn affairs.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

BTW I am not on a crusade. I was just reading the 4 pages of debate and was surprised no one had mentioned this statute that I learned about in 7th grade history.

That's sort of the point. In 7th grade history, they teach you that the President is in charge of foreign policy. Like most things they teach you in 7th grade, that's not exactly true. The actual balance of power between Executive and Legislative is way more complex.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
The US code is littered with laws that would never stand a serious constitutional challenge (i.e. the Espionage Act). The reason why they're still on the books is that no Admin would be idiotic enough to use them, and are therefore never challenged in the courts. The Logan Act is utterly irrelevant from a legal sense.

People have gone to jail for vilation of the Espionage Act.

The Logan Act was last amended in 1994. If it were thought ot be irrelevant it would have been repealed.

I have conceded that no one has been charged with it. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid law. I have conceded that someone could challenge the Constitutionality of it.

I am just pointing out that it is obvious she is in violation of this statute.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Admiral


That's sort of the point. In 7th grade history, they teach you that the President is in charge of foreign policy. Like most things they teach you in 7th grade, that's not exactly true. The actual balance of power between Executive and Legislative is way more complex.

I listed Congress' powers in this area above. If you think I am acting on 7th grade knowledge It might interest you that I have a minor in History and my brother is the President and Dean of a law school, has been published extensively on Contitutional Law issues and he too feels that she is in violation of the Logan Act.

But now that we are done with the chest thumping, just read the act, look at the context in which the act was wrritten (to stop Jefferson from negotiating with France) and only one conclusion is obvious.

Have others violatd the act in the past and not been charged? Yes. Could the act be challenged on Constitutional grounds? Yes, but the outcome is anything but clear.

[Ramo]

People have gone to jail for vilation of the Espionage Act.

Yes. Decades ago.

The Logan Act was last amended in 1994. If it were thought ot be irrelevant it would have been repealed.

Or none of the opponents were the least bit worried about it because they knew it wouldn't stand a serious constitutional challenge, thus were unwilling to spend any political capital to repeal it.

[Admiral]

Ok, first, Pelosi's passport was validated. Logan's act is entirely irrelevant, because Bush didn't take any substantive action to bar her from going. The Bush administration knows that all it has is rhetoric, or else it would have done something.

And if you look at who is actually talking about Logan's Act right now, you'll see that it is only the extreme right-wing fringe. These are the same people who think that those in Congress who don't unconditionally support Bush's war plans should be hung. Isn't it curious that no one with any political responsibility is talking about Logan's Act?

Oh, and if Bush did try to invoke the act, it would be immediately thrown out of court. The Supreme Court has a clear and unequivocal history of avoiding cases relating to the relative powers of the legislative and executive branches. It would be deemed a "political question," and dismissed.

[Ramo]

When Sens. McGovern and Sparkman went to Cuba in '75, the [Kissinger's] State Dept. said:

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.

Nixon also visited China in the capacity of a private citizen, again, not violating the Logan Act.

[Deity Dude]

BTW read todays Wall Street Journal article. Good to see they are a day behind me.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Some highlights:

Intent of the law as described by te individual who proposed it:

In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."


The Supreme Court weighs in on the exclusive power of the Executive Branch in this area:

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

I thought those of you who said it didn't apply to her or that these sort of activities were within Congress' Consitutional Powers might be interested.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ramo
When Sens. McGovern and Sparkman went to Cuba in '75, the [Kissinger's] State Dept. said:



Nixon also visited China in the capacity of a private citizen, again, not violating the Logan Act.

Already posted that particular excerpt.

[Ramo]

Seeing as how Pelosi didn't pretend to represent the State Dept., that court decision is totally irrelevant.

[Ramo]

Already posted that particular excerpt.

Ah, my bad.

[Deity Dude]

Logan did not pretend to represent the state department nor does the act say anything about pretending to represent te state department.