Posted on 04/09/2007 6:36:05 AM PDT by rob21
Message sent to my Representative
No, I'm afraid you're out of step with the times. That law applies only to Republicans. I'm not kidding.
I found out yesterday that they think we are not at war unless they say we are. So, they can just ignore what our enemies do and ban the term WOT. It is all just propaganda, anyway.
..And look for her to rule on all the outstanding cases before the Supreme Court sometime this week...
“Help my understanding, if she is facing some sort of investigation, regardless of the outcome, she has to step down, right?”
Unfortunately, she won’t HAVE to step down. And considering how arrogant she is, she will try to remain Speaker for as long as she can. With that said, it would funny to see her under investigation for committing a felony, desperately trying to keep her job. “You can’t do this me... I’m, I’m powerful....”
I'm not going to bother. Anything I send to my rep (Van Hollen D-MD) will be replied to with a barely re-written press release from Pelosi's office anyway.
The only thing Bush is a problem about, Nancy, is leniency for illegals which you and your followers agree with so what are you babbling about?
He and pelowski must both have had some kind of a St.Paul's road to Damascus' experience, but just in the opposite of what Paul experienced!!!
Anyone hear that shrill, hysterical woman spinning and spinning for Miss Nancy this a.m. on Fox & Friends? Claimed it was perfectly fine because Newt did it.
Thank God I missed that.
I think the real 'power' amoung congressional (House) democrats is Steny Hoyer. When Madame Pelosi was forced to accept Hoyer as majority leader (over her personal fave, John Murtha) it has been clear that she is there to preside over the House and nothing more. She obviously didn't get the memo that she's just a figure head -- there to attract dimwit votes or -- in event things don't go well -- to take the fall for the Dems.
I personally think she'll be out as Speaker in January 2009 whichever way the election goes.
While he's at it he can charge the Rino's that went to Syria with the same charge. That way, it looks like he is being "bi-partisan".
The Democrats would circle the wagons. Their Propaganda Machine (the "Mainstream Newsmedia") would not let up. "Everybody does it." "It's not really illegal." "Private morality has nothing to do with public performance." "Blah! Blah! Blah!"
Don't forget, many of them contend (and might even believe) that Bush stole the election, is not a ligitimate President, and Blah! Blah! Blah!
Pelosi's prsumption is very dangerous!
“Text of the Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).”
“In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: “[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.”
This is taken from an entry at Wikipedia...not always a reliable resource, but in this instance it sums up up fairly well. The information is sourced as follows:
“George Sutherland (December 21, 1936). United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (No. 98). Cornell Law School.”
The issue at hand is can a member of congress violate this act? If wikipedia is to be believed the legal road to charging a member of congress with a violation of the logan Act is very difficult.
“In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn....” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.”
Wikipedia source: ^ DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750
Any lawyers put there care to comment?
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.