TRAITORS

[Imran Siddiqui]

(I do love the Borowitz Report)

[rah]

Yeah, I clicked the link figuring it would be the Onion and for a second (seeing it was the New Yorker) thought it was serious. Then looked a bit closer and realized what it was.
DOH.

[Sava]

[emoji38]

[The Mad Monk]

History lesson:

Background

Passed during the Adams administration, amid tensions between the U.S. and France, the Act was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator (and later U.S. Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.[2]

Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.[3]

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act, which was pushed through by the Federalist majority with a vote 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[3]

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

Even the person it targeted ignored it. This is the Rodney Dangerfield of enacted law.

What do you all think of law specifically targeted for the advantage or disadvantage of certain private citizens, by the way?

[DinoDoc]

It was to show this case is much, much worse than one guy 30 years ago.

In what way?

Oh, and how is this not a violation of the Logan Act?

The last time anyone was indicted under the Logan Act was 1803. I can cite numerous possible violations from both parties since that time. It's an idiotic discussion as no one's going to be charged under it because it would have been a more regular feature in our politics before now otherwise.

[The Mad Monk]

This law has instigated much political silliness.

In general, the Act is intended to prohibit unauthorized American citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.

Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[4]

The only known indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice John Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot.[2][5]

During the 1968 presidential election, Nixon supporter Anna Chennault, told the South Vietnamese government that Nixon would give them a better deal if they waited.[6][7]

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.[8]

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.[9] The amendment was not adopted.

In March 2015, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter to the government of Iran with the apparent intent of undermining ongoing treaty negotiations.[10] Several commentators suggested that the letter violated the Logan Act.[7][11][12][13]

[N35t0r]

None of the exaples quoted seem like the current affair, in which actual negotiations are being undermined...

[Hauldren Collider]

Literally nothing any of the Senators did is in any fashion illegal.

Even if there is some law forbidding senators from engaging in foreign policy, I imagine a court would find that unconstitutional. Also it's ****ing stupid. We let Senators engage in foreign policy all the time. Obama's sent Kerry on errands while Hillary was sec state.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh yes. It is also literally not treason. That's actually defined in the constitution, friends.

Edit: Final thought: Congress sets its own rules. That's also in the constitution. Even if Congress passed a law circumscribing its own powers, the courts would say it would be up to Congress to enforce that on itself. IIRC the Logan Act is to prevent joes like you and me from trying to engage in official US business without being official US representatives of said business. Basically, you can't be an American mercenary without getting some sort of government OK. Senators are the government.

[N35t0r]

Literally nothing any of the Senators did is in any fashion illegal.

Even if there is some law forbidding senators from engaging in foreign policy, I imagine a court would find that unconstitutional. Also it's ****ing stupid. We let Senators engage in foreign policy all the time. Obama's sent Kerry on errands while Hillary was sec state.

I think that the issue here isn't that senators are engaging in foreign policy, but that they are undermining the executive's actions on foreign policy.

Oh yes. It is also literally not treason. That's actually defined in the constitution, friends.

1) Yeah, we know.
2) It might not legally be considered treason, but the colloquial use of the word is a bit more encompassing

Edit: Final thought: Congress sets its own rules. That's also in the constitution. Even if Congress passed a law circumscribing its own powers, the courts would say it would be up to Congress to enforce that on itself.

This.. doesn't make a lot of sense.

IIRC the Logan Act is to prevent joes like you and me from trying to engage in official US business without being official US representatives of said business. Basically, you can't be an American mercenary without getting some sort of government OK. Senators are the government.

I'm pretty sure that it also doesn't entirely work that way. Legislators probably have a long list of stuff they are and aren't allowed to do as part of the government, and being an 'Official US representative' maybe requires a bit more than just forming a part of the federal government...

[Hauldren Collider]

Undermining the executive is the reason we have congress in the first place. All they are doing is their job. Frankly, the executive could do with a lot of undermining right now, considering all of the blatantly unconstitutional stuff it has been engaged in for the last 4 years.

Being an elected official makes them, if nothing else, a representative of their state's populace, and as one of the 67 votes required to ratify a treaty with a foreign power, it makes total sense for them to establish themselves as part of the international voice of the United States.

Edit:

This.. doesn't make a lot of sense..

It's true. Congress sets its own rules and procedures. If there were some procedural reason that they couldn't talk to a foreign power, the courts would tell congress to deal with it internally. This has happened before, iirc.

[N35t0r]

Undermining the executive is the reason we have congress in the first place. All they are doing is their job. Frankly, the executive could do with a lot of undermining right now, considering all of the blatantly unconstitutional stuff it has been engaged in for the last 4 years.

The role of the legislative is to legislate. There's a reason they get to vote on stuff... If the president is engaging in 'blatantly unconstitutional' stuff, then why isn't he taken to court over it? If congress doesn't like some power that the law grants the executive, the answer is to repeal or ammend said law, not to do this petty sort of things.

Being an elected official makes them, if nothing else, a representative of their state's populace, and as one of the 67 votes required to ratify a treaty with a foreign power, it makes total sense for them to establish themselves as part of the international voice of the United States.

Why have a foreign affairs ministry then? Or, I would gather, a foreign affairs commission in both chambers? They are indeed elected officials to congress, and as such they are perfectly in their right to vote against ratifyng the treaty when it gets to that stage.

Edit:
It's true. Congress sets its own rules and procedures. If there were some procedural reason that they couldn't talk to a foreign power, the courts would tell congress to deal with it internally. This has happened before, iirc.

So the congress could internally decide it has police powers? Or that they also could give orders to the military?

[EPW]

So what's the Republican alternative? Use Iran as target practice every couple of months? Invade?

[N35t0r]

To clarify: in your original post, you said that if congress passed a law saying that members of congress must do X and that doing Y instead of X is illegal, and a member of congress did Y, the it would be up to congress itself to enforce that, and not a matter of bringing said member before a court?

[N35t0r]

So what's the Republican alternative? Use Iran as target practice every couple of months? Invade?

This is directed at me? Republican alternative to what?