When she learns, will she be just as happy that she is engaging in "diplomacy" without the executive's consent, or will she be saddened to learn that she could be charged with a felony?
Also, I am less familiar with the specifics of the GOP members who also visited, but if their visit was an attempt to "influence that government's behavior on any 'disputes or controversies with the United States'", it would seem that they also could be charged.
Powers were divided between the three branches for a reason, regardless of which party holds Congress and which holds the Presidency. I think everyone should take a lesson from this.
BTW, this law has been standing for over 200 years.
2007-04-06 01:58:28 · 11 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Apparently, she does not. But I'm sure she'll have plenty of time to study up on it when she's led out of congress in handcuffs.
2007-04-06 02:02:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
You can be sure that if the Speaker were unfamiliar with this law, the lawyers in the Speaker's Office and in the Democratic Party headquarters would have been. They would have researched the legality of this trip thoroughly before the Speaker even put it on her agenda.
Sometimes it's too embarrassing for a chief executive to make an about face on a policy so he'd let others (even members of the opposition) feel it out while he still pretends to object. Nixon vouched to maintain his strict anti-China, pro-Taiwan policies while at the same time, sending Kissinger secretly to Beijing to negotiate a rapprochement between the US and China.
Only those who are naive about the working of the American power structure would take Bush's objections to Pelosi's trip to Syria seriously. For all we know, Pelosi may be carrying Bush's message to Assad on helping out with Iraq.
2007-04-06 02:37:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you know what the Logan Act represents, and you also acknowledge that three GOP delegates were among those who met with Syria, why do you single out Nancy Pelosi?
But, of course, your interpretation of the Logan Act is somewhat skewed, along with your perception of equanimity in this regard. The fact is that Pelosi and the GOP members were, indeed, elected representatives of the United States -- not private citizens.
Still, I admire your attempt, here.
2007-04-06 02:12:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, and the Supreme Court has suggested it might be unconstitutionally vague.
Secondly, Nancy Pelosi, as a member of Congress and Speaker of the House, probably does not fall under the umbrella of being a "private citizen" separate from the US Government. She might not be authorized to promise anything, but she doesn't look like she fits the criteria of private citizen, since she is a duly elected member of our government.
Now, Ronald Reagan and his proxies, not yet elected to any office, negotiating to delay the release of hostages held by Iran until after the 1980 elections, that would be covered.
2007-04-06 02:20:53 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Interesting - is this the law that was used for Iran-Contra, when we were selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras against Congressional law? Because the president couldn't recollect was that construed as diplomacy without presidential authorization?
This country would be so much better if we would get some actual ethics instead of just rhetorical ethics!!
2007-04-06 02:08:28 · answer #5 · answered by ash 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just incase someone doesn't know what the Logan Act is.
§ 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.
Looks like someone could be serving time instead of serving the liberal agenda.
2007-04-06 02:07:41 · answer #6 · answered by snowball45830 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush blurred the lines between the 3 branches of govt when he stole the 2000 election and through all the signing statements the last 7 years.
2007-04-06 02:01:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
Isn't it sickening how you guys dig up 'obscure' laws to whine about when it suits you?
Take Logan to Disneyworld, please.
2007-04-06 02:13:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Relax, it's not like she outed a CIA agent that was actually looking for terrorists....
2007-04-06 02:06:53 · answer #9 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
She hasn't the slightest idea. I wonder if there are sufficient grounds? Three years in the big house could do her some good...................
2007-04-06 02:02:50 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋