Should house Republicans be charged and tried with violation of the Logan act?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

The Logan act from Wikipedia:

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

I am not talking about the speech from Netanyahu, though I did think that was a serious breach of protocol and a bad move by the Republicans. What I am talking about is this:

Republicans warn Iranian Leaders.

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

Is this a clear violation of the Logan act and a unconstitutional usurpation of the Presidents powers?

[CandidGamera]

Yes, because it would be hilarious.

[Bricker]

No, almost certainly not. So far as I can tell, no one has ever been actually prosecuted under the Logan Act; its deficiencies were noted in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co, 231 F. Supp. 72, 89 (Dist. Court, SDNY 1964):

Another infirmity in defendants’ claim that plaintiff violated the Logan Act is the existence of a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute under the Sixth Amendment. That doubt is engendered by the statute’s use of the vague and indefinite terms, “defeat” and “measures.” See United States v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475, (2d Cir. 1964); Note, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67 (1960); E. Freund, The Use of Indefinite Terms in Statutes, 30 Yale L.J. 437 (1921). Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition.

Since, however, there are other grounds for disposing of this motion, it is not necessary to decide the constitutional question.[30] Furthermore, any “ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83, 75 S.Ct. 620, 622, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955), quoted in United States v. Shackney, supra, 333 F.2d at 475.

[D_Anconia]

Why would House Republicans be responsible for a letter from the Senate?

Anyway, wouldn’t the Senators be immune from prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause?

[Ravenman]

What a condescending letter. Just because certain Americans (perhaps 47 of them or more) don’t understand the Iranian political system, doesn’t mean that Iranian leaders don’t understand the American political system.

Senator Cotton also perhaps is not aware that the heart of the Algiers Accords, which ended the Iranian kidnapping of American embassy employees, is still pretty much intact after 34 years. I bet you that the Iranians are well aware of that executive agreement.

Nonetheless, as much as I think Republicans and some Democrats are stupidly trying to undermine negotiations that are in the best interests of the United States at this point, it would be antithetical to the freedom of speech and debate in Congress to arrest them. At this point.

[John_Mace]

How does one determine if a Senator is acting “without the authority of the United States” when having discussions with foreign leaders? Seems to me this happens all the time, as Senators meet routinely meet with, and discuss “measures” with, foreign leaders.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

No, almost certainly not. So far as I can tell, no one has ever been actually prosecuted under the Logan Act; its deficiencies were noted in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co, 231 F. Supp. 72, 89 (Dist. Court, SDNY 1964):

Thanks Bricker.

@D_Anconia

Why would House Republicans be responsible for a letter from the Senate?

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

@D_Anconia

Anyway, wouldn’t the Senators be immune from prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause?

Can you elaborate why you think this would excuse them?

[QUOTE=Speech or Debate Clause]
…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that they cannot be arrested after the session is over? I don’t think that a letter sent to a foreign government trying to undermine the negotiations of the executive branch counts as speech or debate. Do you think it does?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Ravenman

What a condescending letter. Just because certain Americans (perhaps 47 of them or more) don’t understand the Iranian political system, doesn’t mean that Iranian leaders don’t understand the American political system.

Senator Cotton also perhaps is not aware that the heart of the Algiers Accords, which ended the Iranian kidnapping of American embassy employees, is still pretty much intact after 34 years. I bet you that the Iranians are well aware of that executive agreement.

Nonetheless, as much as I think Republicans and some Democrats are stupidly trying to undermine negotiations that are in the best interests of the United States at this point, it would be antithetical to the freedom of speech and debate in Congress to arrest them. At this point.

I am confused on what the Algiers Accords has to do with the release of the American hostages. Wasn’t the Algiers Accords between Iran and Iraq?

[Ravenman]

Algiers Accords

The heart of it is that the U.S. declined to sue Iran for what they did. This still comes up every once in a while when the families of the hostages seek to sue Iran in Federal courts.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

What a condescending letter. Just because certain Americans (perhaps 47 of them or more) don’t understand the Iranian political system, doesn’t mean that Iranian leaders don’t understand the American political system.

If you ask me, it’s very likely that Iranian political leaders don’t fully understand the American political system.

In general, people tend to understand other countries’ political systems as being somewhat analogous to their own. I think it’s possible that Iranian leaders don’t fully appreciate the difference between presidential acts that do or don’t have congressional/legislative sanction.

[John_Mace]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

If you ask me, it’s very likely that Iranian political leaders don’t fully understand the American political system.

In general, people tend to understand other countries’ political systems as being somewhat analogous to their own. I think it’s possible that Iranian leaders don’t fully appreciate the difference between presidential acts that do or don’t have congressional/legislative sanction.

Americans tend to understand other countires’ political systems as being somewhat analogous to their own.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Ravenman

Algiers Accords - Wikipedia

The heart of it is that the U.S. declined to sue Iran for what they did. This still comes up every once in a while when the families of the hostages seek to sue Iran in Federal courts.

Wow, there are a bunch of “Algiers Accords”. Thanks, I only knew about the Algiers Accords of 1975.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@John_Mace

Americans tend to understand other countires’ political systems as being somewhat analogous to their own.

Very true.

What of it?

[BrainGlutton]

It gets worse.

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

[Ravenman]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

If you ask me, it’s very likely that Iranian political leaders don’t fully understand the American political system.

In general, people tend to understand other countries’ political systems as being somewhat analogous to their own. I think it’s possible that Iranian leaders don’t fully appreciate the difference between presidential acts that do or don’t have congressional/legislative sanction.

Sure, the man on the street in Tehran might believe Obama is the Supreme Leader and that Congress is just a puppet of him.

But you seriously think that the educated foreign policy leaders of Iran don’t read any other newspaper than what’s published in Iran? You think they just don’t understand that Obama lost mid-term elections to Republicans who are trying to undermine the nuclear talks? You think they don’t understand that Congress was pushing for sanctions on Iran well before Obama did?

I think you give them very little credit. We know full well that the Iranian parliament is toothless when it comes to foreign policy; but even they seem to clearly understand that Congress could spoil the negotiations.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

Sure, the man on the street in Tehran might believe Obama is the Supreme Leader and that Congress is just a puppet of him.

But you seriously think that the educated foreign policy leaders of Iran don’t read any other newspaper than what’s published in Iran?

I’m sure the educated foreign leaders of Iran understand the US political system a whole lot better than the average man in the street. But it’s also likely that they don’t understand the dynamics of the US political system, as described above. In particular, if the Iranian parliamant has some amount of nominal power but in reality power is concentrated in the hands of the President or Supreme Leader, then they might naturally assume something analogous prevails here.

You think they just don’t understand that Obama lost mid-term elections to Republicans who are trying to undermine the nuclear talks? You think they don’t understand that Congress was pushing for sanctions on Iran well before Obama did?

I’m not sure what misunderstanding you’re suggesting here. What the Republicans are trying to prevent is the Iranians from making a deal now and then reacting with fury at being double-crossed when a Republican president reverses and agreement that was not approved by the Senate.

[D_Anconia]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Can you elaborate why you think this would excuse them?

The supporters of Bob Menendez are throwing up the Speech or Debate clause as one of his defenses against corruption charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/corruption-case-against-sen-robert-menendez-could-be-tough-to-make/2015/03/07/7af48e7c-c507-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html

Are you saying that they cannot be arrested after the session is over? I don’t think that a letter sent to a foreign government trying to undermine the negotiations of the executive branch counts as speech or debate. Do you think it does?

One can’t be arrested for sending a letter. Can you explain why you think the Senators should be?

[BrainGlutton]

@D_Anconia

One can’t be arrested for sending a letter.

Of course one can be arrested for sending a letter, if the letter is evidence of a criminal conspiracy or something.

[D_Anconia]

@BrainGlutton

Of course one can be arrested for sending a letter, if the letter is evidence of a criminal conspiracy or something.

What criminal conspiracy has been committed in the instant case?

[BrainGlutton]

@D_Anconia

What criminal conspiracy has been committed in the instant case?

A conspiracy to violate the Logan Act.

“The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of our nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” - Justice Sutherland, majority opinion, United States vs. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.