Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal Diplomacy
WSJ ^ | April 6, 2007 | ROBERT F. TURNER

Posted on 04/06/2007 4:49:53 AM PDT by Brilliant

...Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad...

The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."...

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist ...traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace... Rep. Roger Griswold...explained that the object was... "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power..."

Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute..."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under ...Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic..." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: burqagirl; democratfelon; democrats; dhimmicrats; iran; islamophiles; islamophilia; loganact; muhammadsminions; nancypelosi; pelosi; syria
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: Sidebar Moderator

shouldn’t this be on the sidebar? Thanks


21 posted on 04/06/2007 6:22:20 AM PDT by RDTF (They should have put down Barbarella instead of Barbaro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
Let's fill her email in-box with copies of this excerpt of the Logan Act, with a copy to POTUS.

Her email is "sf.nancy@mail.house.gov"

This is close as I could get for GWB "comments@whitehouse.gov"

22 posted on 04/06/2007 6:30:00 AM PDT by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Pelosi violated The Logan Act and MUST be charged.


QUOTE 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. UNQUOTE

The Constitution is clear. The Constitution MUST be enforced. Pelosi MUST be charged because she violated the Logan Act.

Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria explicitly against the request of the President to not go, to negotiate foreign policy for the United States is in direct violation to the Logan Act.

Enforce the Constitution now.

23 posted on 04/06/2007 6:33:53 AM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoustonTech
Yeah, I guess you are right. However, wouldn’t it be nice to have someone think of, what I hope is a truly moral majority, interested in Constitutional law,....we the people, the law of the land..... instead of me, me, me, me. Instead of thinking about a personal, political, career they think of the constituents?

Ahhhh...what a beautiful dream....I guess it’s time to get back to reality. Thanks for waking me up.

24 posted on 04/06/2007 6:40:45 AM PDT by parthian shot (I can't stand much more of this!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
It also represents a stunning naivete on her part. I pray for the health of President Bush and VP Cheney.
25 posted on 04/06/2007 6:55:53 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The most hollow Presidency since Ike.

Why did he run if he doesn’t want to use his authority?


26 posted on 04/06/2007 7:17:15 AM PDT by Finalapproach29er (Dems will impeach Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

Unfortunately, for the last 30 years, the USA has been sliding down the slopes of anarchy. Should GW ignore the letter of the law further by ignoring our borders and Pelozi’s illegal trip to the ME, we the people have the duty to fill the void our Government is leaving.

The Declaration of Independence states in the first sentence “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

We are coming to the point where our leaders at all levels need to be removed. If we do not act, this will be just the beginning of the furthering Anarchy that we are just beginning to see.


27 posted on 04/06/2007 7:44:21 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pyx

Does this mean explicitly the consent of the POTUS? Or can she be covered as being part of the US Government?


28 posted on 04/06/2007 7:48:12 AM PDT by amutr22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

bttt


29 posted on 04/06/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by jackv (just shakin' my head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

Does this mean explicitly the consent of the POTUS? Or can she be covered as being part of the US Government?


30 posted on 04/06/2007 7:51:02 AM PDT by amutr22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

placemarker


31 posted on 04/06/2007 7:56:20 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Saving it for later


32 posted on 04/06/2007 8:06:18 AM PDT by thirst4truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pyx

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Start putting pressure on congress. We can’t let Pelosi violate the laws of our nation. Democrats have to follow the law, just like the rest of us.


33 posted on 04/06/2007 8:31:59 AM PDT by rob21 (Duncan Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

IT seems to me that this has now become another of those vital questions to be asked, again and again, of every presidential candidate.

Something like, “In light of recent and repeated contacts by unauthorized indviduals with hostile governments, usurping the Constitutional power of the President and in clear violation of the Logan Act, will you now promise to enforce the sole authority of the President to conduct foreign policy?”


34 posted on 04/06/2007 8:37:40 AM PDT by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
This article has been made available at the WSJ's free OpinionJournal site here:

Illigal Deplomacy

35 posted on 04/06/2007 9:01:26 AM PDT by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Of course perjury is against the law. That is why Billy Jeff was impeached


36 posted on 04/06/2007 10:17:31 AM PDT by Kaslin (Fred Thompson for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rob21
Start putting pressure on congress. We can’t let Pelosi violate the laws of our nation. Democrats have to follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Are you kidding? Laws are only for usn not the Rats. They are excempted

37 posted on 04/06/2007 10:33:57 AM PDT by Kaslin (Fred Thompson for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Impeach Pelosi!


38 posted on 04/06/2007 11:12:23 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant


SEA ISLAND, Georgia (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he never authorized the use of any interrogation techniques in the war on terrorism that would violate U.S. or international laws.

"The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations," Bush told reporters at the G8 Summit.

***

the Truman Administration argued its position in the Federal courts and asked the Supreme Court to rule that he had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to seize the steel factories despite the fact that the Congress did not want him to do so and thus refused to give him this power.

The Supreme Court said that even though the President may have a claim to some "inherent authority" to seize these factories, once Congress has enacted laws making clear that he cannot do so, the President under our system of Government does not have the right to act outside of the law by violating Congress’ intent. In so ruling, the Court said that the where Congress has the power to legislate in a certain area (as it plainly does with regard to regulating eavesdropping on American citizens), the President is no more permitted to violate that law than anyone else is, even if he claims that doing so is necessary for him to carry out his Executive duties to protect the nation. It really does not get any clearer or more dispositive than this.

***

State of the Union Address, January 2002

THE PRESIDENT:

"But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state"


Pretty clear. If the President is not exempt from the law, neither is the Speaker of the House.
39 posted on 04/06/2007 11:50:15 AM PDT by TLI (ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA, MMP AZ 2005, TxMMP El Paso Oct+April 2006 TxMMP Laredo - El Paso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

"I have no interest in investigating Speaker Pelosi committed a Felony or Treason. I am more interested in whether Scooter Libby told Tim Russert he had a bagel for breakfast, when I know darn well he had a bran muffin."


40 posted on 04/06/2007 1:39:07 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson