# Should house Republicans be charged and tried with violation of the Logan act? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597 "2015-03-09T13:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/81 "2015-03-10T02:51:29Z")
Could this also fall under Congressional immunity from prosecution? Could this be construed as speech or debate? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/82 "2015-03-10T02:56:25Z")
I’d also point out again that if the President is going to intrude on Congressional prerogatives on the basis of he doesn’t like what they’ve decided, then Congress can intrude on his prerogatives when they don’t like what he’s doing. They are co-equal branches. If the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like, then Congress can ignore executive decisions they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/83 "2015-03-10T04:12:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with Congress letting Iran know that the President is on his own, and Congress can go ahead and pass new sanctions at will regardless of what understanding the President reaches with Iran. Not really. Republicans might bluff about having no regard for executive agreements, but when push comes to shove, some will be reluctant about ignoring a big, multi-lateral agreement like this one. And, in any event, they will not have a filibuster-proof majority on Iran any time soon. Asking Senator 50 to use the nuclear option to reneg on an executive agreement limiting the Iranian nuclear program seems…unlikely to me. > [@adaher](#): > > Second, there’s a wide gulf between “worthless”, and “legally binding”. SOFA agreements that are not ratified may not be legally binding, but they are not worthless either. An agreement where the President goes against the will of Congress is actually pretty close to worthless, and it’s very unusual for a President to pursue such an agreement. I can’t think of any historical examples. An executive agreement is legally binding in many senses. It does not forbid Congress from taking action, but then neither does a treaty, formally. Congress can pass legislation that violates a treaty or an executive agreement. It doesn’t generally do so because it’s a bad idea. And Congress has not officially expressed a will on the subject, have they? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/84 "2015-03-10T05:02:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > . . . If the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like, then Congress can ignore executive decisions they don’t like. This could end up leaving the Army to decide which of them to remove from power… We saw tanks shooting holes in the Russian Parliament building. Let’s not play this game at home! ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/85 "2015-03-10T05:28:40Z")
Question for the OP. Is a treaty negotiation a dispute, a controversy, or a measure? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/86 "2015-03-10T08:10:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Second, there’s a wide gulf between “worthless”, and “legally binding”. SOFA agreements that are not ratified may not be legally binding, but they are not worthless either. An agreement where the President goes against the will of Congress is actually pretty close to worthless, and it’s very unusual for a President to pursue such an agreement. I can’t think of any historical examples. Just to be clear, are you saying that executive agreements are not legally binding? > [@adaher](#): > > I’d also point out again that if the President is going to intrude on Congressional prerogatives on the basis of he doesn’t like what they’ve decided, then Congress can intrude on his prerogatives when they don’t like what he’s doing. They are co-equal branches. If the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like, then Congress can ignore executive decisions they don’t like. I don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of the President intruding on congressional prerogatives, but no, neither one is justified. One unconstitutional action doesn’t make another one constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/87 "2015-03-10T13:09:14Z")
I know this is “Great DEBATES,” but it occurs to me we’re edging into a discussion of the intersection between U.S. domestic law and international law. The particulars of that subject constitute a debate the size of Jupiter. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/88 "2015-03-10T13:45:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d also point out again that if the President is going to intrude on Congressional prerogatives on the basis of he doesn’t like what they’ve decided, then Congress can intrude on his prerogatives when they don’t like what he’s doing. They are co-equal branches.\*\*\*\* If the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like, then Congress can ignore executive decisions they don’t like.\*\*\*\* Sounds like some in Congress are using the justifications of a petulant 12 year old. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/89 "2015-03-10T13:48:30Z")
> [@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): It is a 6th Amendment violation? How so? (genuinely curious) Also, while I can see where “defeat” and “measures” might lead to gray areas does that kill the law in the eyes of the court even if in the case at hand there is no ambiguity? In the case of the senate being discussed the “measures” are obvious and overt and public and the intent to “defeat” negotiations is explicit in what they wrote. There is nothing “vague” about the letter and its intentions and it squarely is meant to undermine the president’s explicit constitutional power to negotiate treaties. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/90 "2015-03-10T13:50:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know this is “Great DEBATES,” but it occurs to me we’re edging into a discussion of the intersection between U.S. domestic law and international law. > > The particulars of that subject constitute a debate the size of Jupiter. Don’t worry, I have a feeling that a good number of people here have already decided this is an open and shut case. And that they are correct, of course. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/91 "2015-03-10T14:00:48Z")
> [@CGav8r](#): > > Sounds like some in Congress are using the justifications of a petulant 12 year old. No, it’s the logic of co-equal branches. If the President’s power increases, then Congress’ must increase as well or else we no longer have co-equal branches of government. Congress passes laws. The President has asserted the power to ignore those laws. Since Congress cannot compel enforcement by means other than impeachment, their best option is to exert their own powers in non-traditional, but legal ways. Congress does have a role in foreign policy. They have traditionally deferred to the President, but are under no legal obligation to do so. Why should they defer to a President who aggressively undermines Congress? Obviously it’s a bad constitutional situation that could lead to a crisis, but it’s pretty easy to fix: faithfully execute the laws of this nation. Stop doing unilateral foreign policy actions that are in violation of US law, such as normalizing relations with Cuba before they’ve held elections. And stop negotiating agreements that even your own party doesn’t support. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/92 "2015-03-10T14:09:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, it’s the logic of co-equal branches. If the President’s power increases, then Congress’ must increase as well or else we no longer have co-equal branches of government. > > Congress passes laws. The President has asserted the power to ignore those laws. Since Congress cannot compel enforcement by means other than impeachment, their best option is to exert their own powers in non-traditional, but legal ways. Congress does have a role in foreign policy. They have traditionally deferred to the President, but are under no legal obligation to do so. Why should they defer to a President who aggressively undermines Congress? For the sake of argument assuming you are right then it should be noted that two wrongs do not make a right. Is it your contention is that the president flouts the law so therefore congress should too in order to even things up? If so then that is a horrible way to go about things. If we are to be a country of laws and governed as such then making shit up as they go along is not a reasonable or desirable course of action. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/93 "2015-03-10T14:15:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > For the sake of argument assuming you are right then it should be noted that two wrongs do not make a right. > > Is it your contention is that the president flouts the law so therefore congress should too in order to even things up? If so then that is a horrible way to go about things. > > If we are to be a country of laws and governed as such then making shit up as they go along is not a reasonable or desirable course of action. The difference is that congress isn’t flouting the law. Congress is simply asserting that the President cannot act alone in areas where the branches share responsibility. the President is under the impression that Congress’ failure to do what he wants entitles him to just do his own thing. Which he can, under very limited circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/94 "2015-03-10T14:19:32Z")
The real difference is that this President has the temerity to make decisions on implementation of immigration (just like many of his predecessors, but whatevs), and he is negotiating with a foreign power without Congress’s approval (as set forth in the Constitution, and just like all of his predecessors, but whatevs), and this means he is a tyrant and dictator, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/95 "2015-03-10T14:24:49Z")
Just to be clear: A lot of people are saying that the Logan Act is constitutionally questionable, and therefore does not apply. But has its constitutionality ever actually been tested by the courts? It seems to me that the proper statement would be that _if_ Logan were ever actually tested, it would at that point _probably_ cease to apply, but that for the moment, having not yet been so tested, it still does apply. It looks to me like the Republicans are in fact in violation of the Logan Act, but that it would be unwise to prosecute them for it, because such prosecution would likely result in the Logan Act being overturned, and would have negative political repercussions on the prosecutors. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/96 "2015-03-10T14:25:38Z")
I wouldn’t call him a tyrant or dictator. But there’s a difference between executive action that is in line with the letter and spirit of the law and executive action which is in opposition to it. On Iran, he’s certainly not violating any laws, but he is working on an agreement that pretty much only he supports. Congress is overwhelmingly against it, in bipartisan fashion. Can you think of another President who has pursued such a deal? THe President’s job is to carry out the laws Congress passes. When a President is working in active opposition to Congress on multiple fronts, that’s a problem and Congress can’t be expected to just take it lying down. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/97 "2015-03-10T14:26:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Just to be clear: A lot of people are saying that the Logan Act is constitutionally questionable, and therefore does not apply. But has its constitutionality ever actually been tested by the courts? It seems to me that the proper statement would be that _if_ Logan were ever actually tested, it would at that point _probably_ cease to apply, but that for the moment, having not yet been so tested, it probably would. > > It looks to me like the Republicans are in fact in violation of the Logan Act, but that it would be unwise to prosecute them for it, because such prosecution would likely result in the Logan Act being overturned, and would have negative political repercussions on the prosecutors. Yes, it’s like impeachment in reverse. The President trying to charge 47 legislators with a crime under questionable legislation that came out of the same environment as the Alien and Sedition acts would be quite unwise. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/98 "2015-03-10T14:28:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > On Iran, he’s certainly not violating any laws, but he is working on an agreement that pretty much only he supports. Congress is overwhelmingly against it, in bipartisan fashion. These are not factual statements. > [@](#): > > THe President’s job is to carry out the laws Congress passes. When a President is working in active opposition to Congress on multiple fronts, that’s a problem and Congress can’t be expected to just take it lying down. That’s not the only job of the President. So far, this Congress and Senate haven’t actually fully passed any laws contrary to his negotiations (keeping in mind that any such laws would have to be signed by him). Not that I support prosecuting the letter-writers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/99 "2015-03-10T14:32:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The difference is that congress isn’t flouting the law. Congress is simply asserting that the President cannot act alone in areas where the branches share responsibility. the President is under the impression that Congress’ failure to do what he wants entitles him to just do his own thing. Which he can, under very limited circumstances. Negotiating treaties is clearly the president’s domain. Sure the senate has to vote to pass any treaty he negotiates but that is not the same as sharing responsibility for negotiating the treaty. Any government negotiating a treaty with the US president will be well aware of how it all works. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/100 "2015-03-10T14:36:00Z")
I agree. he is free to negotiating whatever he wants with Iran. But the effectiveness of such an executive agreement will depend on Congress and the next President following it. While I agree that even a Republican president would be unlikely to overturn such an agreement, at least if Iran appears to be abiding by it, I’d note that even Hillary Clinton has said she does not support acknowledging Iran’s right to enrich: > [@](#): > > “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right,” Clinton said. "I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. > > Read more: [Hillary First Break From Obama Administration - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-first-break-from-obama-administration-2014-8#ixzz3Tzf8h14o) I’m sure she’ll uphold the deal if she’s elected, but it’s pretty clear this isn’t something she’d be pursuing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=6)