Redstate

The text, from Wikipedia...

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.
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Any citizen. That covers Members of Congress.

Without authority of the United States in other words, not a member of the current Administration whose Constitutional duty is the conduct of foreign policy.

directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government that pretty well covers visiting Syria or Iran to talk to their government's officials. It would also cover the now infamous "Dear Commandente" letter signed by John Kerry and a laundry list of of Congressional leftists back in the '80's.

in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States pretty well covers the stated intent of the Members in question when they discuss their travel plans. See Specter's quote in the article.

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years club Fed. They get charged with felonies. If convicted, they are out of the Congress.

The Logan Act was written in 1799, well before laws were written by lawyers for the sole purpose of enriching other lawyers by making the wording so fuzzy that it would require judicial interpretation of conflicting clauses. It's plain English.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

on foreign policy which supersedes. So is this a legitimate part of advise and consent ? It also raises doubt on the without the authority of the united states.

are going against the specific request of the Secretary of State. Are you right in your points? Maybe, but I'd like to see them arrested and tried. Let a jury figure it out.

Even if they are found not guilty, it will send the appropriate message to Assad and Ahwhatshisname. And the Senate.

Or, you can always default to my favorite action: wait until the Senators are in Damascus and then bomb the city flat. I am absolutely serious about that proposal.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

But I think death by litigation is the appropriate sentence for malfeasant congresscritters.

Would not cover field trips to negotiate with other states in defiance of the executive. Just as it wouldn't be an excuse for them to order troops to complete some military objective over the objections of the executive.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

No, it only has that authority on TREATIES, not 'foreign policy' in general.
--
Run like Reagan!

Tim Johnson will recover. There's no difference between 51/49 and 52/48. Especially when Specter would not be Chair of Judiciary as a Dem. I have a hard time imagining that his votes will be any different as a D.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

My point has nothing to do with Sen. Johnson's health or lack thereof. His (Specter's) votes might not be different, but consider the many possibilities that one party defection causes (the difference between 51/49 and 52/48), to wit:

1. It makes a difference if someone (or more) dies in the next couple of years;

2. It makes a difference if someone else (or more) defects;

3. It makes a difference in the apportionment of committee seats, staffs, and funds;

4. Potentialy it does make a difference in how he votes if one party or the other is in more of a position to scratch or whip his back;

5. It affects which party has the incumbent running for his seat the next time around in terms of funding and mobilizing supporters for other races.

I'm sure there is more. The dems took the gamble of alienating Lieberman (and are sweating over what he might do next). We stuck with Chafee, and no harm was done when we lost that race.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

1. Unless we get the Democrats to give us a deal now, that isn't going to happen. It is not an automatic thing.

2. See #1

3. Nope. 50 would make a difference, 49 and 48 does not.

4. This wouldn't change. The Democrats can still offer him free cool stuff in exchange for his vote.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Lieberman is a man of principle. Specter is not.

Lieberman is "off the reservation" on one issue, the war. He also wagged his finger at Clinton. He did not, however, vote to impeach. Lieberman is a liberal and will vote that way on every issue except the prosecution of the war because he actually understands what's at stake.

Specter is off the reservation on most issues. His performance getting judicial nominees to the floor has been less than stellar, his comments on issues relating to national security are right up there with Jack Murtha's.

He leaves? Good riddance. We've lost nothing but a cancer in the body politic, the Dems are welcome to him.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

did to the pubic hair on coke can gal in defending Clarence Thomas.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

it comes to the actual foreign policy, this White House still has "courage" but when it comes to ANYTHING domestic - including chiding those stateside who undermine our foreign policy - they have done less than nothing.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

the continuation of the war in Iraq.

The Administration is institutionally gutless about immigration and spending for policy reasons. They (POTUS) don't believe in sealing our border or enforcing immigration law. They also believe in expanding the role of government so we can show compassion.

With respect to National Security, the Administration caved on the creation of DHS, which so far is pretty unimpressive except for adding payroll to the federal budget. I'm still waiting for the DoJ to impanel a grand jury to investigate the leaks of classified documents and programs to the NYT and WaPo. I won't live long enough to see anything but outraged blather over that.

I am holding no hope that anything will come of this but Congressional hearings that will attempt to force the Administration to do something they likely won't do. Sit down directly with Syria and Iran. Because the Administration won't stand up and slap these idiots upside the head we will sow confusion in the Middle East and empower the terrorists.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If courage is the correct word. Courage defined as being willing to take the heat for doing an unpopular thing and willing to take the consequences. Bush has courage a-plenty as a man, as pertains to the Press (in terms of not caring what they think of him), and esp on the war. So, as pertains to Bush, the man, I doubt lack of courage ever comes into play. I think he is liberal on many issues and gets cowardly legal advice, which is what prevents him from going after the press on leaks, etc. I really don't think W lacks courage as in worrying about the consequences to him for doing the right thing. He's not a lawyer (which is usually a positive), though, so he is heavily reliant on his lawyers.

Do you really think that Specter is breaking the law? I'm not convinced.

I think its quite unptraiotic, stupid and morally bankrupt, but not illegal.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

but since I never know when to shut up...

Personally, I don't know. I think so, it certainly appears so. The language of the statute is pretty simple. And Specter has said publicly that he disagrees with the Administration's foreign policy and wants to do something about it. This isn't just some "fact finding" trip.

Charge him. Let the judicial system sort it out. There's certainly enough ham in the sandwich for an indictment.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I will do some work and read the Logan Act and then conclude the same thing. Why? Because I just doubt that Specter's words so far are specific enough to be actionable under any statute that's specific enough. But, I will do the work. I know what the Latin words mean after all...

Beck

"Charge him. Let the judicial system sort it out. There's certainly enough ham in the sandwich for an indictment."

First Joliphant and caveat emptor and now the ham sandwich...

Wow, the civil libertarian in me is re-awakening.

BTW, sorry for that "WOW" above. I've often wanted to choke flyerhawk for his one word subject lines of "wow."
Just a pet peeve.

wow. feels wrong.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

concern that you have. Yours being "the law".

I am more interested in making the point, in wartime, to our enemies, that Specter DOES NOT represent the government of the United States. He has his agenda, it is NOT the Administration's agenda. I think a good frog march will make the point.

I also know full well that my wishes might as well be horses for all the good it will do. I don't have much pull in the Administration. Heck, when the President called me four times just before the election he wouldn't even shut up long enough for me to make my point on several issues. I kept trying and he just kept talking. Even Laura wouldn't listen. And that really hurt.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Dems and some repubs for their emboldening of the enemy since 2003. He ought to suggest that since Specter and Nelson were going to see Syria and Iran that they should serve warrants on them while there for there roles in the murder of Americans, and ask for the remains if any, of the dead Americans they have played a role in causing. Then he could ask, that since they are meeting with the top two terror nation-states in the world, why not go see little ole UBL as well. What's the difference, except that UBL is peanuts compared to Iran and Syria and their mistresses (whose junkets these trips most be most about) probably aren't in for cave dwelling.

Bush really should go on TV everyday that a Dem of Repub says anything that would mislead the enemy concerning our policy on the war. To underline each day that he, not Congress, is who will insist on waging war against them and dare the Dems to defy him and cut off fends.

Make it clear each day whose side the Dems are on.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

after all, that could be taken as "questioning their patriotism".
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'm not in a state right now where I think I can dig up the law and evaluate this carefully, given the amount of cross-referencing it takes to piece together most anything in the US Code, but I'd be surprised if Specter's own words don't amount to an admission of breaking the law here.

This isn't the first time the administration has shied away from vigorous enforcement of the law, though. How many leaks of important War on Terror secrets have gone unpunished? How many traitors do we have in the State Department?
--
Run like Reagan!

Specter said he wasn't under the impression he would walk away with a diplomatic deal...

Why would he say that if he WASN'T attempting to negotiate? Why not simply spew the "searching for facts..." weasle words that usually preceed these boondogles. Specter, Kerry, etal are conducting their own foreign policy. They should be arrested, preferably hauled out of their offices in cuffs so the world gets a clear picture of who ISN'T responsible for foreign policy.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

I'm on day 3 of Claritin D keeping me from being miserable in bed all day.

I'm only semi-functional, enough to play Final Fantasy XII and sorta read Red State to pass the time between coughs, but not enough to really concentrate on much.
--
Run like Reagan!

to defend me to Dave. Maybe he's right though, that to even use the issue tangentially even if I don't mention the name and the speculation at all, is taste-challenged. What's so bad is that i have purposefully avoided engaging in speculation about the senate this week, and quite frankly wouldn't want the senate majority due to a death or resignation due to incapacity any way.

I am animated by the life issue, and try to re-visit Shiavo when I can.

But I respect Dave a lot, and it gives me pause.

Thanks for your support.

I did read the Logan Act excerpt upthread, and couldn't believe how broad it is. I really think that language is quite vague and yes, I would have to look at research to see where the cases are. But you know, as the law is written, yes, Specter, Nelson, Teddy Kennedy in the 80s, Kerry and the Libs seeing Castro and Ortega, are all guilty.

There is no treaty fact finding here, and Specter's language seems to express an intent to do exactly what the law forbids.

What is with this deference in DC by Presidents to congressmen?

Maybe lack of courage is an element. But if so, it extends to most all Presidents.

That's why we need...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
http://gamecock.townhall.com

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?