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.
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.
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.
In criminal law, the terms of a statute must be clear. As the Supreme Court explained:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
