Is this an offense under the Logan Act? GOP's message to Iran.

Republican U.S. senators warned Iran's leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal with President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, an unusual partisan intervention into foreign policy that could undermine delicate international talks with Tehran.

The open letter was signed by 47 senators, all but seven of the Republicans in the Senate, and none of Obama's fellow Democrats, who called it a "stunt." It says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017.

They said they would consider any deal merely "an executive agreement" if it is not approved by Congress.

"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," the letter read.

A White House spokesman called the letter a continuation of a partisan strategy seeking to undermine Obama's ability to conduct foreign policy. He said it "certainly interferes" in efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.

www.reuters.com...

So the GOP Congress is going against the wishes of the Prez. No biggie there, happens all the time BUT by sending this message have the GOP overstepped their mandate into the land of felony?

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.

en.wikipedia.org...

One could argue the term "unauthorized citizens". However has a Congress ever gone to the length this one has in opposing a sitting president in matters of foreign affairs?

a reply to: intrepid

I am not sure that the letter constitutes negotiation.

a reply to: intrepid

The Logan Act refers to individuals acting on behalf of the government.

Sadly, Congress is part of the government.

Thats good The morons on all levels are checking and balancing each other!!! 😂😂😂😂a reply to: intrepid

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrepid

I am not sure that the letter constitutes negotiation.

The letter basically says that you can make a deal with Obama but it may be overturned in 2 years. That sound like negotiating, interfering at the least.

a reply to: intrepid

Time to Vote for only 3rd Party Candidates. Republicans + Democrats have no interest in the American People. These Senators should move to Israel.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrepid

I am not sure that the letter constitutes negotiation.

The letter basically says that you can make a deal with Obama but it may be overturned in 2 years. That sound like negotiating, interfering at the least.

Negotiating typically is a back and forth between two parties. We don't have that here. We might call it advice.

If one Senator had made a statement in public to the same effect as the letter, would he be guilty? If so, can politicians be forced into silence on any international matter?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: intrepid

The Logan Act refers to individuals acting on behalf of the government.

Sadly, Congress is part of the government.

Yes BUT are they "authorized" to be in these discussions? I haven't seen anything like this before, from either parties.

a reply to: intrepid

This is an excellent argument for Putin and anybody else in the Neanderthalean world to not sign a thing with "Americans" ...

Seriously... What sort of moran would shout it out loud "nobody can trust us, we are loonies" ... Oh yes, Good Old Pissheads - GOP

a reply to: intrepid
OR they are just stating the fact that if a Republican is elected in 18 months then whatever deals Obama screws around with can be ditched by the new POTUS. A reminder not to get comfortable with whatever Obama is doing because the tide could change in just a handful of months. Both Democrats and Republicans do this sort of posturing at the end of an administration. That's my guess.

a reply to: intrepid

I am sorry but this letter is outright wrong, I am truly surprised that any adult would engage in this kind of tactic. It erodes the system further, which is disappearing rapidly anyway. I am no fan of the President, but I do have a respect for the office and I would say the 47 signers of this letter have none. I was surprised to see Rand Paul involved.

originally posted by: intrepid

Yes BUT are they "authorized" to be in these discussions? I haven't seen anything like this before, from either parties.

All treaties need their ratification. If they have no intention of ratifying it they are saving everyone the time of doing a Kabuki Dance to craft one.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Ya within our gov and our own parties they do this.

When was the last time either party decided to tell a nation that what every deal you come to with the current pres we are most likely not going to honor?

a reply to: intrepid

I think it is a violation... From your source, the text of the Logan Act:

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.

Hmmm... this could be interesting.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrepid

Yes BUT are they "authorized" to be in these discussions? I haven't seen anything like this before, from either parties.

All treaties need their ratification. If they have no intention of ratifying it they are saving everyone the time of doing a Kabuki Dance to craft one.

This is all assuming that the GOP will win the WH and hold the House. That isn't a given. I can only think what this says to the world. Unity isn't a word I'd use.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I would have to agree with your interpretation. I still can't get over the fact that this happened.

I don't know what's going on, but with Netanyahu coming here to lay out his case against this deal Obama is about to make, and now some brave congressmen taking these unusual steps, something is seriously amiss.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Logan Act refers to individuals acting on behalf of the government.

I believe it also applies to government officials circumventing State Department foreign policy negotiations… which this most-certainly is. Researching that now.

John Kerry never got called on his violation of the Logan act when he actually met with Vietnamese Gov't officials in France in regards to the war. So I don't think the posturing of people in DC is going to even remotely comes close to being something that would be able to be called out.

Lots of partisan crap with this. Check out how the left wing is screaming that the GOP violated the Logan Act, but then when there are questions about those on the left doing the same kind of thing, they say it's just fine.

LEFT WING Daily Kos - GOP Violated Logan Act

So what exactly did 47 Republicans just do? They wrote to Iranian leaders advising them that Republicans will undo any nuclear deal [the President] might enter into with Iran. In other words, they are corresponding with Iran to "intentionally influence the measures or conduct of a foreign government" with the United States.
Sounds like a Logan Act violation to me.

LEFT WING Media Matters - Nancy Pelosi Did Not Violate the Logan Act

When Pelosi visited Syria in 2007, critics claimed that she had violated the Logan Act, which is a federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens from negotiating on behalf of the United States without authorization. But the law does not appear to bar members of Congress from speaking with foreign leaders.

According to a 1975 State Department statement, which was noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the law], 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."

a reply to: queenofswords

What is so brave about it?
Causing rift with a country we are/were on the verge of reaching some sort of peace with?

Ya, real brave.