Originally posted by MoneyManMikeWhere, pray tell, in the Logan Act did you find the word "President"? It said and means "without authority of the United States". Contrary to what right wingers think when a Republican is President, the President is NOT the United States. As the legal opinion of State expressly declares "Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." What part of that can't you grasp? Legislative leaders don't go in meetings with foreign leaders to chat about the weather and what drapes look the best.
So what you are saying is that President Bush authorized Senator Obama to negotiate with leaders in Iraq on policy? I earnestly disagree, but if you have evidence I am open to it.
About Governor Palin's meeting with Karzai, her advisor, Stephen Biegun, said that Palin is aware that she is a candidate for office and not the President of the United St ...[text shortened]... legal terms and Obama's meeting was clearly illegal. How you fail to grasp this is beyond me.
I doubt even dimwitted Sarah didn't discuss ANY policy matters; what the hell would be the point?
John McCain and Iraq's foreign minister met Sunday in Arlington, Va., on ways to improve security in Iraq and a future status of forces agreement, a treaty the U.S. maintains with several nations to determine U.S. military force presence abroad.
[emphasis added]
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/15/mccain-meets-with-iraqi-foreign-minister-outside-dc/
Where is the right wing outcry about McCain's discussion of the status of force agreement in June with the same Iraqi officials?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou left out one important premise that was a necessary part of the Dept. of State's conclusion that Senators Sparkman and McGovern did not violate the Logan Act. The DoS made it clear that they knew the Senators' intentions prior to the trip and that they game them authorization to talk with Cuban officials. The DoS also stated that McGovern had claimed that "[he] made it clear that [he] had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that [he] had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975), and that Sparkman's contacts were conducted in a similar basis. I believe the DoS wouldn't have granted them authorization or would have found them at fault if the Senators' intentions were to negotiate with Cuban officials.
Where, pray tell, in the Logan Act did you find the word "President"? It said and means "without authority of the United States". Contrary to what right wingers think when a Republican is President, the President is NOT the United States. As the legal opinion of State expressly declares "Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members o ...[text shortened]... en dimwitted Sarah didn't discuss ANY policy matters; what the hell would be the point?
In regards to John McCain's talk with Zebari, the article in question clearly states that no negotiations took place, but rather Zebari briefed McCain on the current situation in Iraq and they both came to the agreement that the surge was working. Therefore, since no negotiations took place, McCain didn't violate the Logan Act.
But Obama did when he met with Zebari. In an interview, Zebari says that "[Obama] asked why we are not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington." In other words, Obama was attempting to undermine President Bush's negotiations with the Iraq government concerning troop withdrawal, even though Obama has never been granted authority to do such negotiations. The first paragraph of the Logan Act clearly states that "...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." Thus, Obama certainly violated the Logan Act when he asked Zebari to delay any withdrawal negotiations until January.
Also, I know you took what the DoS said out of context and made it out to be proof that the Senators somehow are exempt from the laws established by the Logan Act, so let me clarify a point made by a Supreme Court Justice who has precedence over the DoS in legal matters. The late Supreme Court Justice Sutherland had said that "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Thus, Senators like McCain, Sparkman, and McGovern can talk to foreign leaders, but they can't negotiate with them like Obama did.
Originally posted by no1marauderSince Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that "The President shall have power...to make treaties," and the Logan Act is about agreements with foreign governments, then it is quite clear that the constitution gives the President authority in matters concerning the Logan Act. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states that "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation," thus Senators, representatives of states, don't have authority to negotiate in foreign matters.
Where, pray tell, in the Logan Act did you find the word "President"? It said and means "without authority of the United States".
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeRidiculous is all I can say. The President's treaty making power can't be reasonably extended to preclude any other official from discussing foreign policy matters with foreign governments. Senators are not "representatives of States" either; they are officials of the US Government (HINT: Who pays their salaries?). The Logan Act, has it name implies, was meant to deal with private citizens negotiating with foreign governments; as the State Department legal opinion says in no uncertain terms it is inapplicable to Congressional members.
Since Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that "The President shall have power...to make treaties," and the Logan Act is about agreements with foreign governments, then it is quite clear that the constitution gives the President authority in matters concerning the Logan Act. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitutio ...[text shortened]... Senators, representatives of states, don't have authority to negotiate in foreign matters.
Basically, your argument is that since McCain agrees with Bush's policy he can talk to Iraqi officials but because Obama does not if he talks to Iraqi officials he's a felon! That's typical, preposterous right wing nonsense.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThis post is good for a laugh but nothing more.
You left out one important premise that was a necessary part of the Dept. of State's conclusion that Senators Sparkman and McGovern did not violate the Logan Act. The DoS made it clear that they knew the Senators' intentions prior to the trip and that they game them authorization to talk with Cuban officials. The DoS also stated that McGovern had clai ...[text shortened]... can talk to foreign leaders, but they can't negotiate with them like Obama did.
The State Department legal opinion on the Logan Act is explicit: "Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." Nothing McGovern or Sparkman did or didn't do is "a necessary part" of that conclusion.
Obama "negotiated" nothing. He asked a very good question. Contrary to your assertions, Obama was free to ask Iraqi officials whatever he pleased as McCain did. The only difference is that McCain supports an indefinite occupation of Iraq and Obama doesn't. But this difference is completely inconsequential to the Logan Act since it doesn't apply either way.
Sutherland's dicta (it was not necessary to the resolution of the Curtis-Wright case and is therefore not legally binding) was not specifically discussing the Logan Act; the DoS legal opinion was. Again, Obama didn't negotiate anyway; he offered nothing in return for anything Iraq might do. Your partisan rant can't change the fact that Obama's discussions with Iraqi leaders was no more a negotiation than McCain's. As already stated, government officials of all stripes routinely discuss policy matters with foreign government officials and not a peep is raised. This is just another smear campaign by desperate partisans. Pathetic.
Finally, "Sutherland’s use of the ‘‘sole organ’’ remark in Curtiss-Wright prompted Justice
Robert Jackson in 1952 to say that the most that can be drawn from Sutherland’s
decision is the intimidation that the President ‘‘might act in external affairs without
congressional authority, but not that he might act contrary to an act of Congress.’’
Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 636 n.2 (1952). Jackson also noted that
‘‘much of the [Sutherland] opinion is dictum.’’
http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/shrg105-729.pdf
The Logan Act passed by Congress clearly states that the person be not "acting under the authority" of the US. A Senator doing legislative business is clearly acting "under the authority of the US" has the State Department reasoned. Thus, no matter how convenient a President might find censoring what congressmen can say to foreign leaders, it is beyond his power unless a statute specifically gives him the power to do so.
Not surprisingly, you completely fail to grasp the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Logan Act. Let me first begin by clarifying that US citizenship is not surrendered when an individual takes office; in other words, elected officials including Presidents and Senators maintain their citizenship while in office. Thus, both Presidents and Senators as US citizens are subject to the Logan Act: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be." So as you said the Logan Act was intended for only private citizens, I am asserting that it encompasses all US citizens. That being said, let me move on to my second point. The US Constitution explicitly states that the President has sole power in the realm of negotiating agreements with foreign governments, while Congress can not intrude on the same negotiates, they can and must approve of the final agreement thus making it law. Now your notion that Senators can talk with foreign leaders is true, but what they can talk about is limited. The DoS was correct when they asserted that "Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." Which means that the discussions in question should be under the theme of "listen and learn," meaning the Senators' intent should be one of fact finding in order for them to make a rational decision when they vote on an anticipated final agreement presented by the President. One important piece of the Logan Act states that "[any unauthorized citizen] 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." Now it has already been established that the President is solely empowered by the Constitution to negotiate agreements with foreign governments. If any unauthorized citizen, including Senators, attempted to make a separate agreement with a foreign government or attempted to undermine the President in his negotiations with a foreign government, than he is violating the Logan Act.
That being said, I argue that Senator Obama violated the Logan Act. While President Bush and his staff were negotiating with the Iraqi government on a Status of Forces Agreement that included the issue of troop withdrawal, Obama met independently as a Presidential Candidate with Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement. In other words, he was attempting to undermine President Bush by persuading Zebari to halt talks until January. It is crystal clear that Obama was "intent on [influencing] the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent...in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States [by] [defeating] the measures of the United States," thus he violated the Logan Act.
McCain didn't violate the Logan Act when he met with Zebari because the theme of his meeting was strictly "listen and learn," and he certainly did not try to persuade Zebari to enact any policy in his country or with the United States.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYou can argue all you want, but all these points have been dealt with. You keep reading bits and pieces of it out of context; of course a US Senator is "a citizen" but he cannot act "without the authority of the United States" when he is on an official trip and acting within the scope of his legislative duties. Seeking information and giving his impressions about an issue that he certainly has a voice in (any treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate) is within the "pursuance of his legislative duties" and easily satisfies the criteria of the State department's legal opinion.
Not surprisingly, you completely fail to grasp the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Logan Act. Let me first begin by clarifying that US citizenship is not surrendered when an individual takes office; in other words, elected officials including Presidents and Senators maintain their citizenship while in office. Thus, bo ...[text shortened]... y to persuade Zebari to enact any policy in his country or with the United States.
There is no phrase in the Logan Act or in the US Constitution called "listen and learn". This right wing attempt to create law based on what the spinmeisters said Palin was doing is bizarre. Since the Logan Act by its very terms is inapplicable to Congress (as the State Department clearly said), there are no limits there in what they can say. Quite simply, there isn't a shred of evidence that Congress when it passed the Logan Act intended to give the President authority to muzzle Congressmen in their discussions with foreign leaders. Again, the Logan incident involved a private citizen, not a Congressman.
Your last paragraph is a hoot; McCain discussed security issues and the status of force agreement with Iraqi officials, THE SAME TOPICS Obama did. And right wing fairy tale tellers can pretend he didn't give his opinion on such matters (which may or may not have agreed with all of Bush's) if they choose, but I have no reason to accept such an unlikely premise; he most certainly would have tried to persuade these officials to enact policies regarding themselves and the US. Under the arguments advanced above by you, he's just as guilty as Obama. Your strained reading of Logan (contradicted by its express language and a definitive State department legal opinion) is just pure partisanship. You should man up and admit it.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou completely miss the point at issue here. The issue isn't whether or not US Senators can have meetings with foreign officials, it is that they can not have meetings or correspondence with foreign officials with the "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." Yes McCain and Obama had discussions with Zebari over similar subject matter, the difference between the meetings is that Obama made suggestions that undermine what the Bush Administration is trying to accomplish in Iraq. That is clearly a violation of the Logan Act; how you can deny this is beyond me. I have three theories on this; either your love for Obama has made you delusional, you have the reasoning power of a ten year old, or you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, or all of the above.
You can argue all you want, but all these points have been dealt with. You keep reading bits and pieces of it out of context; of course a US Senator is "a citizen" but he cannot act "without the authority of the United States" when he is on an official trip and acting within the scope of his legislative duties. Seeking information and giving his impressi epartment legal opinion) is just pure partisanship. You should man up and admit it.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikePlease read these words carefully (or have someone read them to you, SLOWLY if necessary):
You completely miss the point at issue here. The issue isn't whether or not US Senators can have meetings with foreign officials, it is that they can not have meetings or correspondence with foreign officials with the "intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes o ower of a ten year old, or you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, or all of the above.
Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."
Obama can't violate the Logan Act. Period. Exclamation point.
As I stated above' "your argument is that since McCain agrees with Bush's policy he can talk to Iraqi officials but because Obama does not if he talks to Iraqi officials he's a felon!" The implication is that Congress passed a law giving the President complete authority over what a member of Congress can say to a foreign official. Not even the State Department subscribes to such a bizarre notion.
I wouldn't insult a 10 year old by saying he can't reason better than to present such an obviously ludicrous argument as your right wing friends are making.