Editor's notes: As the dreamers in the Utopian Party feel the pain of being disrespected, following 6 years of Obama's childish ranker against the GOP, they are now trying to use a law that is more than 200 years old, a law that has never been used in a prosecution, in an act of revenge against the 47 Senators who acted within their authority as elected statesmen.
Understand this: it is Obama who is acting without authority. After six years, it is time for the opposition to put him in his place. The American people no longer trust the man, and 71% of the folks do not believe in his Iran "deal."
Of late, there is talk of the Logan Act, of using it as retaliation against the 47 Senators. Impossible and undeserved. The Dems have violated this Act, more than once, and now, they want to pretend their shock at "undermining the Commander in Chief," when that was their M.O. throughout the Iraqi war days under George Bush. And, now, here is a legal opinion on why this "prosecution" will never make it to a court of law.
I. “Without authority of the United States”
. . . . . . . . . . . . the
State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . .
would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in
discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative
duties under the Constitution.” . . . . . It seems likely that contemporary and/or
future courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress.
II. The First Amendment (and the Fifth)
The Logan Act, recall, was written in 1799, well over a century
before the rise of modern First (and Fifth) Amendment doctrine with
regard to protections for speech and against prosecutions for unclear
misconduct. It seems quite likely, as one district court suggested in
passing in 1964, that the terms of the statute are both
unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far
stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based
restrictions on speech. Thus, even if the Act does encompass
official communications from Members of Congress acting within their
legislative capacity, it seems likely that it would not survive modern
First Amendment scrutiny were it to be invoked in such a case.
III. Desuetude - this rules out prosecution.
The Logan Act has never been successfully used (indeed, the last indictment
under the Act was 1803, more than 200 years ago) . . . . . . It’s worth
reminding folks about “desuetude”–the legal doctrine pursuant to which
statutes (especially criminal ones) may lapse if they are never enforced
(interested readers should check out a fantastic 2006 student note on
the subject in the Harvard Law Review).
Read the full article, here.
“They probably were in violation of the act, yes,” says Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the American University Washington College of Law.
ReplyDeleteThe Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
Let's put some money on it, Slick. There will be no prosecution. The law has been "termed out" under the legal principle of Desuetude. It was probably unConstitutional when written, and it certainly is now. But never mind that: Obama is so far out of line, Constitutionally speaking, as to make him an enemy of the State. He can change his ways, but pride, in this case, precedes his fall . . . . . . by about six years, to date.
ReplyDeleteIn thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.
Vice President Joseph Biden
First, you quoted an Iranian terrorist/government member, as your authority. Now, you are quoting Joe Biden. Good grief.
DeleteLook, Obama via Kerry, today, told us that the deal he was working would not be a binding agreement. Say what ???!!! And, in 10 years, Iran could do whatever they wanted to do with nuclear power. The deal is a terrible deal, and all Middle Eastern leaders agree . . . . all of them. So what is Obama doing? Basically, he is telling the world to go to hell; that he knows best . . . . . . and THAT is the reason he should be undercut.
We have a president who is mentally handicapped and should no longer be allowed to make critical decisions. More than this, I see no evidence that Iran even likes the deal. We have never had a mentally ill president, before. That is why you have no historical reference for what the 47 did. At least Hillary is not mental.