Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
really? How so?Oh, so that's what you were driving at... OK... I haven't been paying the closest of attention to this thread since it began to cool off, and I'd forgotten... OK.you lost yourselfYou lost me...You say no, but then you go and contradict yourself.Nope. Never said so. Never believed so....Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.
But the Senate has the right of advice and consent with respect to treaties, and withholding of 'consent' serves as a 'legislative veto' of a President's actions, and, when coupled with the Power of the National Purse, as held by the House, this makes the President accountable to the Congress de facto, with respect to treaties.
...
...
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
3 Briefing on Treaties
That said...
All the more reason, to make it plain to the Neanderthal ayatollahs in Iran, that the United States will not honor any Bad Deal with Iran, once Obumble leaves office.
WTFread the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
So how did they violate the Logan act?
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
the hypocrisy is conservatives
dopey, this is the definition of non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.No, Dante, it's not screwy...againWhen the Supreme Leader of the Iranian religious autocracy publicly denounces the terms announced by the United States, to be inaccurate, and/or a downright lie, well...Newsflash, mine good colleague... there never WAS a 'deal'... there never COULD have been a 'deal'... Iran wants nukes... all they were ever doing is stalling.Yea it sure is great the the Republicans are willing to screw up any agreement with Iran...
....Kondor3 's crystal ball has been known to be cloudy, cloudy, cloudy
And given that we are dealing with religious fanatics who routinely encourage martyrdom and who are aggressively pursuing Shia Militarism throughout the region...
Well, mine good colleague, it doesn't really take much of a crystal ball to predict such things (as a No-Deal scenario) in advance, does it?
Pretty much what the Pubs expected of the Iranian ayatollahs all along.
That's not crediting them with an over-abundance of ability to predict the future...
Just more common sense than your average fourth-grade elementary school unicorns-and-rainbows school-child...
Something regrettably and embarrassingly lacking in the Obumbe Administration... in either the White House OR the State Department...
Your boy screwed the pooch, the Pubs called it, and now you're upset...
As you should be...
But at the wrong people...
what did you predict right before the 2012 Presidential election?
It's dead on target... entirely rational, and very common-sense -focused in nature.
It really did not require a crystal ball, to predict that those dikkwads in Tehran would repudiate anything even remotely representing an actual agreement preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons...
And I have no idea what you are referring to, in connection with me and the 2012 general election...
Especially in light of the fact that I voted for Obumble, as a lesser evil than Mittens (Mister Forty-Seven Percent)...
Non sequitur.
So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
Okay, but first go after Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry for their traitorous acts on foreign soil during the Vietnam War.
Then go after Ted Kennedy (dig the bastard up and hang him), Nancy Pelosi, and half the Democrats in Congress for the same during George 'Dubya' Bush's Presidency.
simple:WTFread the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
So how did they violate the Logan act?
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
simple:WTFread the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
So how did they violate the Logan act?
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
read the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
Is it Republicans who are the subject of the deal with Iran? What is the thread title?the hypocrisy is conservatives
Stopped reading here. Why don't we discuss our views? Why are you so obsessed with what Republicans think you deem it necessary to make that the topic of every discussion?
I asked how Republicans violated the Logan act, specifically. That is about what they did, not what your opinion of them is
no it isn'tThe Logan Act is about citizens who interfere with government. Something like Lt. John Kerry meeting with NVA reps in Paris during the Vietnam war. It's ludicrous to try to apply it to the freaking federal government which has the obligation to ratify treaties.
Why do you keep serving-up the definition of Executive Agreements?really? How so?Oh, so that's what you were driving at... OK... I haven't been paying the closest of attention to this thread since it began to cool off, and I'd forgotten... OK.you lost yourselfYou lost me...You say no, but then you go and contradict yourself.Nope. Never said so. Never believed so.
But the Senate has the right of advice and consent with respect to treaties, and withholding of 'consent' serves as a 'legislative veto' of a President's actions, and, when coupled with the Power of the National Purse, as held by the House, this makes the President accountable to the Congress de facto, with respect to treaties.
...
...
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
3 Briefing on Treaties
That said...
All the more reason, to make it plain to the Neanderthal ayatollahs in Iran, that the United States will not honor any Bad Deal with Iran, once Obumble leaves office.
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
read the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.simple:WTFread the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
So how did they violate the Logan act?
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
read the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
Ah, so you don't know. But if I read it I may come up with something.
A shining star of intelligence would be Dante
Is it Republicans who are the subject of the deal with Iran? What is the thread title?the hypocrisy is conservatives
Stopped reading here. Why don't we discuss our views? Why are you so obsessed with what Republicans think you deem it necessary to make that the topic of every discussion?
I asked how Republicans violated the Logan act, specifically. That is about what they did, not what your opinion of them is
Should? President Obama is the duly elected President of the United States of America, the Chief Executive. What he should do is not up to weirdos like you. What he can do is the subject of this threadWhy do you keep serving-up the definition of Executive Agreements?really? How so?Oh, so that's what you were driving at... OK... I haven't been paying the closest of attention to this thread since it began to cool off, and I'd forgotten... OK.you lost yourselfYou lost me...You say no, but then you go and contradict yourself.
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
3 Briefing on Treaties
That said...
All the more reason, to make it plain to the Neanderthal ayatollahs in Iran, that the United States will not honor any Bad Deal with Iran, once Obumble leaves office.
Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
Are you operating under the impression that Executive Agreements are beyond the domain of Congress?
Especially given the Power of the National Purse?
And most especially given that an Executive Agreement signed by ONE Executive can be rescinded at the drop of a hat by the next?
Or through domestic political arm-twisting?
You are focusing waaaaaaayyy too much on whether Obumble CAN do a thing...
Rather than focusing like you should on whether Obumble SHOULD do a thing...
It is the 'SHOULD' that concerns us here, not the 'CAN'...
And if the answer to 'SHOULD' is actually 'No - as so many believe - then it then becomes a matter of how to legally throw a monkey-wrench into a Bad Deal...
Or a NON-EXISTENT deal, as we now see unfolding, as the ayatollahs deny the terms publicized by Obumble et al even existed in the first place...
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
read the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.simple:WTFread the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.So how did they violate the Logan act?
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
read the law and it's history. It really doesn't matter though since if it were challenged it would probably not hold up.
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
Ah, so you don't know. But if I read it I may come up with something.
A shining star of intelligence would be Dante
the hypocrisy is conservatives have been charging liberals violate the Logan Act whenever it suits their fancy
You declaring my opinions as thus does not ipso facto render them as thus...dopey, this is the definition of non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.No, Dante, it's not screwy...againWhen the Supreme Leader of the Iranian religious autocracy publicly denounces the terms announced by the United States, to be inaccurate, and/or a downright lie, well...Newsflash, mine good colleague... there never WAS a 'deal'... there never COULD have been a 'deal'... Iran wants nukes... all they were ever doing is stalling.
And given that we are dealing with religious fanatics who routinely encourage martyrdom and who are aggressively pursuing Shia Militarism throughout the region...
Well, mine good colleague, it doesn't really take much of a crystal ball to predict such things (as a No-Deal scenario) in advance, does it?
Pretty much what the Pubs expected of the Iranian ayatollahs all along.
That's not crediting them with an over-abundance of ability to predict the future...
Just more common sense than your average fourth-grade elementary school unicorns-and-rainbows school-child...
Something regrettably and embarrassingly lacking in the Obumbe Administration... in either the White House OR the State Department...
Your boy screwed the pooch, the Pubs called it, and now you're upset...
As you should be...
But at the wrong people...
what did you predict right before the 2012 Presidential election?
It's dead on target... entirely rational, and very common-sense -focused in nature.
It really did not require a crystal ball, to predict that those dikkwads in Tehran would repudiate anything even remotely representing an actual agreement preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons...
And I have no idea what you are referring to, in connection with me and the 2012 general election...
Especially in light of the fact that I voted for Obumble, as a lesser evil than Mittens (Mister Forty-Seven Percent)...
Non sequitur.
asking you in an aside about 2012 cannot be construed as being a non sequitur, unless of course you have an extremely poor grasp of the English language. now...
Your opinions are not 'dead on target' they are more of alarmist and paranoid views bereft of reason and rationality
So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.
It reads:
"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."
Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR
--------------------
A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?
Okay, but first go after Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry for their traitorous acts on foreign soil during the Vietnam War.
Then go after Ted Kennedy (dig the bastard up and hang him), Nancy Pelosi, and half the Democrats in Congress for the same during George 'Dubya' Bush's Presidency.
there you go again...
predictably stupid
The Constitution does not give the Executive Branch the power to issue Executive Orders, except in their capacity as CINC of the Military, and in running the day to day affairs of the White House, and those those are not named, they just come with the office.
Just because the Supremes made a bad and wrong decision doesn't make it right, i.e. Dred Scott.
