I’m not talking about anything involving ISIS. The Logan Act is the law of the land until it is revised or thrown out by the Supreme Court. Lower courts don’t stop prosecution under that act.
You can’t talk to any foreign power unless you are authorized. That means, sworn in, period.
Have you ever actually read the logan act? It doesn’t say, “You can’t talk to a foreign power.”
There are very specific elements:
You have to have be acting “without authority of the United States” and with specific “intent to influence” the foreign government or agent thereof,
“in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States” OR “to defeat the measures of the United States.”
Cooperation with ISIS isn’t an attempt to defeat any measures of the United States, and there wasn’t any “dispute or controversies.”
And you are just flat out wrong about “only the Supreme Court” can throw out a statute. Any federal court can enjoin the enforceability of or dismiss an indictment based on an unconstitutional statute.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine IS a Supreme Court doctrine, and that is the precise problem with the act as written, and that’s what the Court in the Waldron case pointed out.
Your precious Logan Act is unconstitutional as written, because “defeat” and “measures” aren’t enough to put anyone on notice as to what those terms mean in accordance with the Sixth Amendment.
So go cry elsewhere.
A few years ago I went to a party at the Prime Minister of Belize’s residence. I actually spoke to him. I was at the time unauthorized to speak to him. Please, keep this between us here.
“You can’t talk to any foreign power unless you are authorized. That means, sworn in, period.”
What?!?! You are clueless. That is not the law. Why are you spouting off about this - you clearly do not understand the Logan Act.