Democrats claim that this letter improperly interferes with diplomatic negotiations, in violation of the Logan Act. This Act, passed in 1798, contains only 136 words. The language I highlighted in yellow I will comment on after the line that reads: :UNQUOTE.
QUOTE [Text of the Logan Act: 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)]:
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.
My comments on yellowed highlights above:
without authority of the United States - I believe the Logan Act is unconstitutional for a number of reasons. For instance, what is meant by "the authority of the United States?" It doesn't say, "the authority of the President of the United States." If one wished to communicate with a foreign government, while making it clear he was doing so as a private citizen and not as a representative of the USA, should he be compelled first to obtain a note from the President and from the Senate, which has to ratify any resulting treaty?
indirectly...with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof : Suppose I were to write a letter to a private citizen of a foreign country and he, in turn, without being urged by me, passed my comments on to officials of his government. Would that make me guilty of "indirectly" trying to influence that government?
defeat the measures of the United States: If talks are in progress with the President having certain goals in mind, how can anyone know what the "measures of the United States" are, without knowing how the Senate (which might not ratify any resulting treaty), feels - which might be in opposition to how the President might feel?
If the "measures of the United States" can be so easily defeated by simply letting the Iranians know the mechanics of our system of law, then those measures would richly deserve to be defeated. In my own case, I posted an essay on Feb. 17, 2012 explaining how Iran could invoke Article X of the Nuclear Non-Provision Treaty, which would allow them to legally acquire nuclear weapons:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/02/irans-long-range-strategy.html
My essay gives the Iranians a strategy to defeat US intentions, even though those intentions are in violation of a treaty we signed that has the Article X provision. US intentions at the current bargaining table can't be allowed to ignore our current legal obligations. Besides, I posted this essay before the current talks began and made no attempt to convey my ideas to the Iranian government. But even if I did, I would be within my rights since it should never be against the law to tell the truth.
And that's what that GOP letter did - it simply said, in effect, this is how our system works. How could that be wrong?
The Power of the President
Article II, Section 1 - which concerns the presidency - opens with this sentence
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
The word "executive" isn't defined, but I take it to mean that the President is to "execute" the will of the Congress. Many Americans blithely assume that our Constitution created three separate but equal branches of government. That view is wrong - Article I created the Congress, which was meant to be the most powerful entity. And, in order of importance, Article II and III created the presidency and the courts.
If you have any doubts as to why the Congress should be considered supreme, remember this:
Congress can impeach the President and members of the judiciary. But Congress can't be dissolved by judges or the president.
The GOP letter mentions not only treaties, but two alternatives:
a congressional-executive agreement and an executive agreement.
However, these two options aren't mentioned in the Constitution - therefore they're illegal.
QUOTE [see footnote 1]:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Sincerely, [signed by 47 GOP senators]
[AND]
He added the GOP’s case rests on choices, not requirements: “Their argument isn’t that the president can’t make executive agreements. But, rather, that the president can’t make an executive agreement on an issue of this importance.
FOOTNOTES:
Footnote 1:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/09/text-of-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders-on-nuclear-talks/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment