# 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:** 9
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/161 "2015-03-10T23:26:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s arguably strictly within the executive’s purview as commander in chief. Lifting sanctions is a Congressional prerogative. No, the trade of arms is an exercise in foreign relations, not commanding troops. Haven’t you noticed that the State Department has responsibility for arms sales? Lifting sanctions isn’t a congressional prerogative. Read the friggin’ law. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/162 "2015-03-10T23:28:24Z")
Age isn’t the issue. It’s the political environment that produced it. Threatened war with France, the republic was tested and found wanting when Congress just upped and legislated away our basic rights. The Logan Act remains on the books only because they haven’t tried to put anyone in jail. ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/163 "2015-03-10T23:33:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, the trade of arms is an exercise in foreign relations, not commanding troops. Haven’t you noticed that the State Department has responsibility for arms sales? > > Lifting sanctions isn’t a congressional prerogative. Read the friggin’ law. It is, Congress often puts conditions on the lifting of sanctions. ---
**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, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/164 "2015-03-10T23:57:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What does age have to do with it? > > Corporate personhood was established as a doctrine in 1886 in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. Funny thing is the court didn’t even establish that but rather a court reporter did. In 1819, the legislature of New Hampshire passed a law declaring that Dartmouth College was henceforth to be a public institution, and the governor of New Hampshire would have the power to appoint trustees. The US Supreme Court overturned this legislation, finding that the corporation itself had the same rights under the constitution as a human person would, including the right to remain private and not become a public college. _Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward_, 4 Wheat. 250 (1819): > [@](#): > > A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. > . > . > . > An artificial, immortal being, was created by the crown, capable of receiving and distributing for ever, according to the will of the donors, the donations which should be made to it. On this being, the contributions which had been collected were immediately bestowed. These gifts were made, not indeed to make a profit for the donors, or their posterity, but for something, in their opinion, of inestimable value; for something which they deemed a full equivalent for the money with which it was purchased. The consideration for which they stipulated, is the perpetual application of the fund to its object, in the mode prescribed by themselves. Their descendants may take no interest in the preservation of this consideration. But in this respect their descendants are not their representatives; they are represented by the corporation. The corporation is the assignee of their rights, stands in their place, and distributes their bounty, as they would themselves have distributed it, had they been immortal. > . > . > . > It results from this opinion, that the acts of the legislature of New Hampshire, which are stated in the special verdict found in this cause, are repugnant to the constitution of the United States; and that the judgment on this special verdict ought to have been for the plaintiffs. The judgment of the state court must, therefore, be reversed. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/165 "2015-03-10T23:58:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Logan Act remains on the books only because they haven’t tried to put anyone in jail. That may well be true but it remains a law that someone can be prosecuted for violating. If the courts decide it is old and should be struck down so be it. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/166 "2015-03-10T23:59:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 1819, the legislature of New Hampshire passed a law declaring that Dartmouth College was henceforth to be a public institution, and the governor of New Hampshire would have the power to appoint trustees. The US Supreme Court overturned this legislation, finding that the corporation itself had the same rights under the constitution as a human person would, including the right to remain private and not become a public college. > > _Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward_, 4 Wheat. 250 (1819): I thought that was more about corporate rights than corporate personhood. EDIT to add: > [@](#): > > As with most legal thinking, corporate personhood has evolved considerably over time. An 1819 decision, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, first got the ball rolling by holding that corporations have the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people. > > But the Dartmouth case had more to do with corporate rights than personhood. It wasn’t until 1886, in a little-known case, that the Supreme Court said corporations were granted some of the same protections under the 14th Amendment (which famously gave us the much-litigated due process clause) afforded to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which found railroad tycoons, who were at the zenith of their power during the Gilded Age, fitfully protesting taxes levied by California. > > SOURCE: [http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/the-surprising-and-complicated-history-of-the-corporations-are-people-doctrine-20140701](http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/the-surprising-and-complicated-history-of-the-corporations-are-people-doctrine-20140701) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/167 "2015-03-11T00:02:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That may well be true but it remains a law that someone can be prosecuted for violating. If the courts decide it is old and should be struck down so be it. Yeah, but the administration has to think about the politics of it too. What that would be would be basically impeachment in reverse, which doesn’t tend to work out too well unless your case is airtight. ---
**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 11, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/168 "2015-03-11T01:18:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It is, Congress often puts conditions on the lifting of sanctions. Have you read the law? And do you think that this issue is more unprecedented than Nixon’s negotiations of secret “understandings” with South Vietnam following the Paris peace talks? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/169 "2015-03-11T03:18:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I thought that was more about corporate rights than corporate personhood. “. . . the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people.” is personhood. That’s what personhood is. From Blackstone: > [@](#): > > WE have hitherto considered persons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all personal rights die with the person ; and, as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable ; it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. > > THESE artificial persons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations : of which there is a great variety subsisting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce ; in order to preserve entire and for ever those rights and immunities, which, if they were grated only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost and extinct. To shew the advantages of these incorporations, let us confider the case of a college in either of our universities, founded ad studcndum et or andum, for the encouragement and support of religion and learning. If this was a mere voluntary assembly, the individuals which compose it might indeed read, pray, study, and perform scholaftic exercises together, so long as they could agree to do so : but they could neither frame, nor receive, any laws or rules of their conduct ; none at least, which would have any binding force, for want of a coercive power to create a sufficient obligation. Neither could they be capable of retaining any privileges or immunities : for, if such privileges be attacked, which of all this unconnected assembly has the right, or ability, to defend them ? And, when they are dispersed by death or otherwise, how shall they transfer these advantages to another set of students, equally unconnected as themselves ? So also, with regard to holding estates of other property, if land be granted for the purposes of religion or learning to twenty individuals not incorporated, there is no legal way of continuing the property to any other persons for the same purposes, but by endless conveyances from one to the other, as often as the hands are changed. But, when they are consolidated and united into a corporation, they and their successors are then considered as one person in law : as one person, they have one will, which is collected from the sense of the majority of the individuals : this one will may establish rules and orders for the regulation of the whole, which are a sort of municipal laws of this little republic ; or rules and statutes may be prescribed to it at it’s creation, which are then in the place of natural laws : the privileges and immunities, the estates and possessions, of the corporation, when once vested in them, will be for ever vested, without any new conveyance to new successions ; for all the individual members that have existed from the foundation to he present time, or that shall ever hereafter exist, are but one person in law, a person that never dies : in like manner as the river Thames is still the fame river, though the parts which compose it are changing every instant. ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/170 "2015-03-11T04:28:41Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > “. . . the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people.” is personhood. That’s what personhood is. The 14th Amendment did not exist in 1819 with the Dartmouth decision. It did exist and was applied in the Santa Clara County case. So maybe it is better to say corporations became more of a person in the Santa Clara case. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/171 "2015-03-11T10:54:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The 14th Amendment did not exist in 1819 with the Dartmouth decision. It did exist and was applied in the Santa Clara County case. > > So maybe it is better to say corporations became more of a person in the Santa Clara case. The Fifth Amendment did, though. And neither the 5th or 14th amendment changes the definition of person…they just guarantee that rights will be legally protected. ---
**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 11, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/172 "2015-03-11T12:15:56Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The Fifth Amendment did, though. And neither the 5th or 14th amendment changes the definition of person…they just guarantee that rights will be legally protected. As far as I am aware there is no 5th amendment protection for corporations. ---
**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 11, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/173 "2015-03-11T13:54:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As far as I am aware there is no 5th amendment protection for corporations. The 14th amendment\* just basically said that the 5th amendment, and others, applied to the States. It didn’t really change things for the federal government. \*1st section. That’s the part most people mean when they talk about the 14th. Not so much sections 2 and 3. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/174 "2015-03-11T15:40:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You have an overly simplistic understanding of both domestic and international law. Some kinds of agreements must be made by treaty. Others can be made by the executive. Both are “binding” in many senses. Can you explain what differentiates these different types of agreements? ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/175 "2015-03-11T16:03:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you explain what differentiates these different types of agreements? Not comprehensively. In very general terms, both are commitments between nations, but while treaties are always binding under international law, executive agreements can be binding or non-binding under international law. Domestically, a treaty has the force of federal law, though whether it is self-executing or requires additional implementing legislation depends on the content. Whether an agreement must be ratified as a treaty under domestic law depends on the content, among other factors. I can, however, point you to some good resources: [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf) (Department of State explanation of executive agreements) [http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-4/51arizlrev1035.pdf](http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-4/51arizlrev1035.pdf) (discussing of the law of sole executive agreements) [http://www.lawfareblog.com/](http://www.lawfareblog.com/) (commentary on the Senator’s letter from today and yesterday) ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/176 "2015-03-11T16:04:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you explain what differentiates these different types of agreements? At the most simple level, in cases where the President is exercising only such powers as he has under the Constitution or has been given by statute, or in matters that are rather inconsequential to Congress (like if some tiny part of the U.S.-Canada border has been surveyed again and the border should run to the left of some hill, rather than on the ridgeline) an executive agreement is a valid way to conduct business. In contrast, where new law is necessary, a treaty is pretty much required. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/177 "2015-03-11T16:04:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I have not read your link because I am opposed on principle to click on any Breitbart link. However, Politico also has a bit on it here: [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html) (I assume they will be very similar). The articles are similar. Except the Breitbart piece points out several other incidences of Democrats doing it. -John Sparkman and George McGovern in 1975 -Teddy Kennedy in 1983 -Jim Wright in 1984 (as well as the 1987 one) - John Kerry in 1985 Jim McDermott, David Bonior and Mike Thompson in 2002 -Jay Rockefeller in 2002 ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/178 "2015-03-11T16:26:07Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Not comprehensively. In very general terms, both are commitments between nations, but while treaties are always binding under international law, executive agreements can be binding or non-binding under international law. Domestically, a treaty has the force of federal law, though whether it is self-executing or requires additional implementing legislation depends on the content. Whether an agreement must be ratified as a treaty under domestic law depends on the content, among other factors. > > I can, however, point you to some good resources: > > [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf) (Department of State explanation of executive agreements) > > [http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-4/51arizlrev1035.pdf](http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/51-4/51arizlrev1035.pdf) (discussing of the law of sole executive agreements) > > [http://www.lawfareblog.com/](http://www.lawfareblog.com/) (commentary on the Senator’s letter from today and yesterday) > [@Ravenman](#): > > At the most simple level, in cases where the President is exercising only such powers as he has under the Constitution or has been given by statute, or in matters that are rather inconsequential to Congress (like if some tiny part of the U.S.-Canada border has been surveyed again and the border should run to the left of some hill, rather than on the ridgeline) an executive agreement is a valid way to conduct business. > > In contrast, where new law is necessary, a treaty is pretty much required. Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my question. The context is the assertion in this thread that while treaties require ratification by the Senate, executive agreements cannot. This raises the question as to whether a president could make what are effectively treaties but dispense with the “ratification by the senate” part simply by labeling it an executive agreement instead of a treaty. To the extent that there are some things that cannot be done by executive agreement and must be done by treaty, that would be a limiting factor. My question, then, is what are those things, or in what circumstances would the president be required to make a “treaty” and not an “executive agreement”, such that the agreement would not take effect without senate ratification. (To the extent that Ravenman addressed this, the only thing I can figure is that it’s only where new laws are required, which would seem to make the “advice and consent” senate role in treaties completely moot.) ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/179 "2015-03-11T16:34:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To the extent that there are some things that cannot be done by executive agreement and must be done by treaty, that would be a limiting factor. My question, then, is what are those things, or in what circumstances would the president be required to make a “treaty” and not an “executive agreement”, such that the agreement would not take effect without senate ratification. And the answer, and laid out in all three links I provided, is: we don’t know for sure. It’s clear that the important factors are: [ul] [li]The extent to which the authority exercised by the President is explicit in the Constitution[/li][li]The extent to which Congress has expressed its view on the subject through legislation[/li][li]The extent of conflict with state laws[/li][li]Whether the agreement needs to be binding under the Vienna Convention[/li][li]The duration of the agreement[/li][li]Whether the subject matter is something historically done by agreement vs. treaty[/li][li]Whether the agreement can be given effect without legislation[/li][/ul] ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597/180 "2015-03-11T16:36:25Z")
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not sure how those links don’t answer your question. Did you read the State Department document, specifically page 4 where the title is, “Considerations for Selecting Among Constitutionally Authorized Procedures?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-house-republicans-be-charged-and-tried-with-violation-of-the-logan-act/714597.md?page=10)