# 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:** 6
**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, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/101 "2015-03-10T14:53:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 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. International law does not allow following administrations to just willy-nilly undo everything their predecessor did. There would be chaos if that was the case. If a treaty is passed then it becomes part of the law the land. If it doesn’t pass then nothing happens and they go back to negotiating. There is no need or place for the senators to insert themselves into the negotiating process. They have their check on presidential overreach. The foreign country in question will be well aware anything they negotiate needs 2/3 of the senate to come into effect. Indeed I bet the president’s negotiators will be upfront about it saying certain terms will never be agreed to by the senate no matter what the president wants. Likewise in reverse. There is a reason these things take literally years to negotiate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/102 "2015-03-10T14:57:47Z")
> [@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 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. I don’t see the Logan act as applying to Congresscritters, and I think it would be easy for the courts to taylor a narrow decision that exempted members of Congress, but left the law in tact for Joe the Plumber. ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/103 "2015-03-10T14:58:15Z")
That’s pretty much what I said. No ratification means it’s not a treaty, just an agreement that is valid only as long as a President deigns to follow it, and only as long as Congress doesn’t pass new sanctions. And they can actually get sanctions past the veto, plausibly. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/104 "2015-03-10T15:47:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. In criminal law, the terms of a statute must be clear. As the Supreme Court explained: > [@](#): > > That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties, is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law. And a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638. (Quoting _Connally v. General Constr. Co._, 269 US 385 (1926).) Now, you’re correct in suggesting that even though the words might be vague in some circumstances, a statute that is is not vague when applied to a particular set of facts can be sustained, even if it foundered in other, closer cases. BUT – that’s not true when the statute impinges on First Amendment freedoms, such as speech (or writing). In that case, a statute may be challenged as _overbreadth_ even if its terms might be constitutionally applied to the challenger. See _R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul_, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). This doctrine exists because of the social value in avoiding statutes that tend to chill protected free speech: a too-broad law that restricts speech may quell legitimate, protected speech from those unwilling to risk prosecution. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/105 "2015-03-10T15:47:31Z")
**adaher** - to repeat my earlier question, do you believe that executive agreements are not legally binding? Also, do you believe that Congress can pass a law prohibiting the President from recognizing a country, and have that law be considered constitutional and binding on the President? Because you’ve repeated a few times that the President has violated some law so the Congress has to push back, but the only specific you mentioned is the normalization of relations with Cuba. FWIW, I think it is an open-and-shut case that the President has plenary authority to recognize and establish diplomatic relations with other countries. It’s a specific Article II power for the President to receive ambassadors, and it is no more legal for Congress to legislate limitations on an enumerated power than it is for the President to spend funds without an appropriations law. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/106 "2015-03-10T15:47:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s pretty much what I said. No ratification means it’s not a treaty, just an agreement that is valid only as long as a President deigns to follow it, and only as long as Congress doesn’t pass new sanctions. And they can actually get sanctions past the veto, plausibly. You’re again ignoring that many, many agreements are done in exactly the way Obama is doing them, and there is nothing untoward about how he’s doing the Iran negotiations. The problem here is that the GOP is afraid of their ignorant and angry base. So this simpering, disingenuous letter is nothing more than a wink at the audience. They’re willing to endanger peace to throw a bone to the hooting imbeciles that decide GOP primary challenges. They don’t want this to be solved at the negotiation table. They want dead Iranians in smoking rubble to force Iran to capitulate. Because anger and inchoate rage are what’s driving them. From what I hear, it’s probably not illegal, but it’s certainly the action that only a colossal piece of shit would take. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/107 "2015-03-10T15:52:50Z")
I certainly agree that, whatever the legality of the act, this was a terribly, ridiculously dangerous and reckless thing for the GOP Congresscritters to do. And it doesn’t surprise me one bit that once handed the reigns of power in the government, they focus on this kind of shit instead of what actually needs to be done. Used to be that the Democrats could never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but it’s the GOP that acts this way, in spades. And they should be punished at the polls for this next election. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/108 "2015-03-10T16:02:17Z")
I’m incensed by the letter because I disagree completely with its intent and substance, but is there really any principled argument against what the senators did? If the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t know if I would have any problem with this kind of move. (e.g., if President George W. Bush signed an executive agreement with Israel that said we agree to bomb Iran if they cross x threshold toward a nuclear weapon, and a bunch of Democratic senators wrote a letter saying they disagree and that any future Democratic administration might renege on the agreement.) ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/109 "2015-03-10T16:35:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. I absolutely disagree with this interpretation. First of all, the supremacy clause includes treaties. > [@](#): > > This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; **and all treaties made** , or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. I would interpret the Logan Act “defeat the measures” as working with a foreign government to get a treaty with the US that would contradict an established US law. “measures” are not treaty negotiations ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/110 "2015-03-10T16:45:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But how is that determinative? The law in question says “without authority of the United States”. What is “the United States”? As a member of the US Senate, how would one determine if they need some other “authority”? > [@Bricker](#): > > Who knows? That’s why the Logan Act is too vague to be enforceable, a point I may have mentioned once or twice above. I’m curious about this. This question (what is the legal definition of “The United States” in this context) has never arisen? There’s no case law on it? Those aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m genuinely curious. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/111 "2015-03-10T16:49:58Z")
I think that has to happen at this point. They want to start a civil war, apparently in the name of later starting a war with Iran? OK, take it back to them. I am not a lawyer, but separate trials sounds about right. There can be fines if convicted for most, so they still can serve in the Senate; and possibly brief confinement for the ringleaders. That still will mess with their future political careers. Is a Logan Act violation a felony? That may make some ineligible for federal office at the next election, depending on state law. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/112 "2015-03-10T16:50:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I absolutely disagree with this interpretation. First of all, the supremacy clause includes treaties. > I would interpret the Logan Act “defeat the measures” as working with a foreign government to get a treaty with the US that would contradict an established US law. > > “measures” are not treaty negotiations I am not following. What established US law would be contradicted? ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/113 "2015-03-10T16:55:58Z")
We have a President (who I heavily supported and still do to some extent) who decided he could come close to totally rewriting (immigration) law and could govern through the pen rather than through Congress. Is anyone really surprised when Congress, or at least the Republican part of it, decides to follow his lead? I’m not. I wish they hadn’t done it (tit for tat is a poor system of government) but violation of the Logan Act it isn’t even close. ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/114 "2015-03-10T16:57:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In criminal law, the terms of a statute must be clear. As the Supreme Court explained: Just not seeing a 6th amendment issue here. Maybe 5th and 14th. Seems a due process thing but applying the 6th seems odd to me. That said I get (and agree with for what that is worth) the notion that a law need to be clear. > [@](#): > > BUT – that’s not true when the statute impinges on First Amendment freedoms, such as speech (or writing). In that case, a statute may be challenged as _overbreadth_ even if its terms might be constitutionally applied to the challenger. See _R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul_, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). This doctrine exists because of the social value in avoiding statutes that tend to chill protected free speech: a too-broad law that restricts speech may quell legitimate, protected speech from those unwilling to risk prosecution. I can see the 1st amendment applying if it were me or you writing a letter to Iran. But can the senators claim to be Joe Blow citizen writing a letter or are they different when working in their official capacity as a senator? Seems to me, in their official capacity, there are other constitutional questions at hand such as separation of powers that I am not sure the 1st amendment trumps. They did not write as Joe Citizen, they wrote as a group of senators who encroached on an enumerated power of the executive. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/115 "2015-03-10T17:00:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > They are U.S. officials, and they are representatives of their states, but they are not representatives of the U.S. Government. They’re not even part of the government strictly defined, or at least not the executive. I can sympathize with what they’re trying to do, sort of, even though I strongly disagree with their ends. But really, they should have repealed the Logan Act first. 😛 As it is, they’re basically asking for the\* actual\* government to prosecute them for speaking without authority and illegally, and this is a government they have declared an enemy for several years now. Presumably they are willing to stand trial for that. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/116 "2015-03-10T17:12:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Congressional Republicans _should_ be designated as enemy combatants and detained indefinitely without trial. > > Holding them accountable for this act of petty treason is a step in the right direction. I would like to agree with Smapti in this case, but I don’t think it’s much of a legal leg to stand on. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The letter addresses specifically whether an international agreement made by a president without congressional sanction is binding on another president. That’s a bit more nuanced. It really isn’t. Violating an international agreement made with several other countries is a violation under _international law._ Executive prerogatives under USA law mean nothing in that arena. > [@Ravenman](#): > > It is a reasonable conclusion that in the eyes of international law, the United States can’t get out of valid agreements with other countries by saying, “Hey, we tried, but our law doesn’t let us carry out this agreement.” > > From a Constitutional perspective, however, there can be a much different conclusion. Zarif denies your major. I defer to his professional expertise as a foreign minister. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.” [/QUOTE] > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I mean, suppose I sign the treaty with Iran on behalf of the US - obviously it would be null and void under international law. To the extent that the president doesn’t have the authority to sign treaties, how does international law come into play to begin with? Because six other nations will have also signed it, those being Iran itself and the rest of the P5+1. It will be solidly international law under United Nations auspices, regardless of any internal USA law, including the 1787 Constitution. So, under USA law, certainly the next PotUSA can say, “Eh, let’s violate that Obama agreement with Iran,” but at that point he (and we as a nation) will be in violation of international law. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/117 "2015-03-10T17:25:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > To the extent that the president doesn’t have the authority to sign treaties, how does international law come into play to begin with? > > Because six other nations will have also signed it, those being Iran itself and the rest of the P5+1. It will be solidly international law under United Nations auspices, regardless of any internal USA law, including the 1787 Constitution. > > So, under USA law, certainly the next PotUSA can say, “Eh, let’s violate that Obama agreement with Iran,” but at that point he (and we as a nation) will be in violation of international law. Can you explain this is a bit more detail? How do six other nations get to bind the United States under international law when it hasn’t bound itself? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/118 "2015-03-10T17:28:44Z")
> [@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. Eh, Mila Kunis is tiny. > [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Well, half of us. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/119 "2015-03-10T17:39:39Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > I’m incensed by the letter because I disagree completely with its intent and substance, but is there really any principled argument against what the senators did? If the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t know if I would have any problem with this kind of move. (e.g., if President George W. Bush signed an executive agreement with Israel that said we agree to bomb Iran if they cross x threshold toward a nuclear weapon, and a bunch of Democratic senators wrote a letter saying they disagree and that any future Democratic administration might renege on the agreement.) Would they at least attempt to repeal the Logan Act first? Look, I agree with you, but the way they did this was provocative, deliberately or not. Maybe the administration just say, “OK, you asked for it,” charge the lot of them for interfering in a vital nuclear deal, and test the Logan Act. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/120 "2015-03-10T17:48:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain this is a bit more detail? How do six other nations get to bind the United States under international law when it hasn’t bound itself? Well, not being clear on the details of the agreement, I am assuming that the other signatories are not going to be party to a future US President’s repudiation but to _the agreement they actually signed,_ so the USA has a very limited hand in changing the agreement (which is not a bilateral, but a septilateral agreement) and reimposing sanctions. If, say, the US Treasury attempts to unilaterally freeze assets (as they do) presumably the other signatories would see that as a violation of the agreement they–and the USA–signed and followed in the Obama administration; and perhaps refuse to cooperate on the basis that the USA are the actual scofflaws. I don’t know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=7)