General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust wondering who are Republican Senators That DID NOT sign the letter... Also how many people know
or understand the Logan Act? Maybe if the average Joe knew exactly what happen there would be more outcry.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)are clueless this even happened and most other than active folks like us wont care.
They dont see how this can adversely effect them, even though it can in the worse way
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)former9thward
(31,928 posts)Do you understand that in 212 years of the law's existence no one has ever been prosecuted for a violation? Its because it is unconstitutional.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Congress that passed it. It was during the Adam's Administration.
former9thward
(31,928 posts)All 212 years of them who have always refused to prosecute anyone.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)for a violation of the law doesn't make it any less illegal.
You can do things against protocol all day long, but it doesn't make you right to do so, either.
Go stand in the middle of a public place and "exercise your 1st Amendment rights" to hurl obscenities at passersby.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)under the legal doctrine of desuetude, according to which a statute can be judicially abrogated (that is, held unenforceable) following a long period of "intentional nonenforcement and notorious disregard."
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but hope springs eternal.
former9thward
(31,928 posts)So any conduct where someone asserts a Logan At violation is in fact legal. Logan Act aside, Senators are protected by Art I, Section 6 (1) of the Constitution which prevents them from being "questioned in any other place" for what they say or write.
"You can do things against protocol all day long, but it doesn't make you right to do so, either." This is true but not a legal violation. Speaker Pelosi went to Syria to negotiate with Assad in 2007 over the protests of the State Department. It was wrong but not a legal violation.
"Go stand in the middle of a public place and "exercise your 1st Amendment rights" to hurl obscenities at passersby.". A really bad analogy. You must not live in a major city. Mentally ill homeless will do just what you described and they are not arrested.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)diabeticman
(3,121 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)diabeticman
(3,121 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)Here's a pretty good analysis:
The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States. As Peter explained yesterday, the Senators letter certainly seems to fall within this language. But, critically, the citizen must act without authority of the United States. Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and 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. That doesnt mean Members would have immunity under the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clause; it just means the statute would arguably not apply in the first place. Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, 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
Finally, as Peter noted yesterday, the Logan Act has never been successfully used (indeed, the last indictment under the Act was innot a typo1803). Although most assume this is just a practical obstacle to a contemporary prosecution, its worth reminding folks about desuetudethe 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). If ever there was a case in which desuetude could be a successful defense to a federal criminal prosecution, I have to think that this would be it.
A bit more here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Some of them not happy about this letter either.
Bob Corker (Tenn)
Jeff Flake (Ariz)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/who-are-the-seven-republicans-that-didnt-sign-the-iran-letter/
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)isn't that what the revolving door is about?