It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
edit on 12-3-2015 by Rhiannon because: because I wanted to add a line, and then I added the part to scooby-do, plus I LOVE filling out my reason explaining all the mistakes I may have made, or maybe I don't really edit my comments, but think filling out this little box is absurdley fantastic
originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Daedal
If so, add Pelosi to the charges of Treason! Yes, little "General Pelosi", as she was called with affection back in 2007 when she flew (no, not on her broom as one would understandably assume) to Damascus in her official as Madame Speaker, and delivered a highly politically partisan speech
and met with Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Same motivation. Same question of the Logan Act.
Well, well, well...!
Now charge her with Treason and the others who went with!
General Pelosi in Damascus 2007
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Makes you wonder if any of these rogue politicians aren't already making backdoor deals with enemies abroad just for the sole purpose of 'sticking it to the man' because they hate his guts so much.
If I were the enemy, you better believe I'd be jumping at the opportunity to reel the fishies in for my own advantage.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: TKDRL
Damn, already up to 223,014.
Yup.. all signatures have Mexican sounding names...
It is a privilege to serve in the US military. With that privilege comes obligations. Following military law is one of them. When Lt. Col. Joni Ernst signed the seditious letter to Iran, she broke a serious law.
Lt. Col. Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, is a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. As such, she is bound by the Iowa State Code of Military Justice. Her signing of the seditious letter to Iran is a clear and direct violation of Chapter 29B.85 of the Iowa State Code of Military Justice.
29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. www.dailykos.com...]
In Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396, we said,
As a nation with all the attributes of sovereignty, the United States is vested with all the powers of government necessary to maintain an effective control of international relations.
Cf. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., supra, p. 295. [p319]
Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the 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. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch. www.law.cornell.edu...