This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've removed the bit about Pelosi's trip to Syria until consensus can be reached on what is appropriate to include here. With regard to the recent additions by Pudgenet:
She didn't go to "implement" the recommendations. She does not have the power to do so and did not do so, and you have no evidence that she did. She went to Syria in accordance with the general recommendation that the U.S. meet with Syria rather than ignoring them as the Bush administration has done. That does not mean she is trying to unilaterally create a new American policy towards Syria by going around the president. You say that "focusing on the fact of going to a foreign country against the executive's wishes entirely misses the point" — but you can't point to anything Pelosi did except for the fact that she went to Syria at all. And her trip was okayed by Bush (even though he obviously would have preferred that she not go) and the State Department ahead of time. The criticism from the White House has never been a statement that Pelosi went to Syria illegally or was not allowed to go — they just don't like the idea of American politicians meeting with the Syrian government. Dce7 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Some websites claim (without reference) that no one has been convicted of violating this law. Also, what was the nature of the 1994 revisions? What inspired them? -- KarlHallowell 19:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Following document claim some indicments
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
Neither Congressional leaders were investigated, much less indicted. -- Cowbert 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is unknown as to whether President Bush gave his consent to these trips or not.
False. From [2]:
Despite the Bush administration opposition, the State Department said it had briefed Pelosi's staff and was prepared to help on the ground in Syria.
The State Department is part of the executive branch and is under Bush's direct control. Such a briefing and a willingness "to help on the ground in Syria" amounts to consent to the trip — even though he would have preferred that Pelosi not go. Dce7 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The First Amendment states in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Apparently the authors of the Logan Act felt that the right to petition did not include a right for American citizens to make requests of or enter into contracts with foreign governments. The states were specifically prohibited from doing so in Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution but have to act through Congress. In the same section states are prohibited from interfering with the obligations of contracts and requires that any compact between states go through Congress.
The Tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Does this include the right of American citizens to contract outside the US or petition a foreign government? Perhaps, but the American courts would not necessarily have jurisdiction. Jbergquist 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Foreign trade is subject to federal law, i.e., the federal government may and does interfere with foreign trade. Is the Logan Act a trade barrier? Jbergquist 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that there are actions or forms of speech that may violate the terms of the Logan Act, but be constitutionally protected or be encompassed by the Act only due to the Act's broadness or vagueness. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Act, which has the effect of there being no challenges to the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is another example of a criminal statute that has never been enforced through prosecution, though has been the subject of much administrative and civil action. I am not sure whether the Logan Act has been applied administratively or civilly to prohibit acts or speech through means other than prosecution or to punish government employees for alleged violations under a lesser "civil standard" similar to the practice for alleged ADA violations. I question civil application of a statute written purely as a criminal law because it has the effect of civilly or administratively punishing a person for actions that may fail to meet the standard for criminal prosecution. The major exception here would be existence of evidence establishing guilt that is inadmissible in criminal court, but not prohibited from consideration in civil court or administratively. Most evidence, including unlawfully obtained evidence, is fair game outside of criminal prosecutions except evidence obtained through torture. The significant implication of administrative punishment is that a government employee could be fired for an alleged violation of the Logan Act without the necessary evidence for a criminal conviction. In the case of an employee who commits the alleged violation during the scope of employment is likely guilty of the improper conduct regardless of the terms of the Logan Act (i.e., attempting to negotiation or communicate with foreign governments outside the scope of an employee's duties). The constitutional implications arise for acts of an employee not involving the employee's duties or position. For a private citizen not employed by the government, civil or administrative action could result in injunctions with contempt enforcement and/or denial or termination of passports, licenses, contracts, grants, or any other action requiring approval of the government. I suppose if you do what you are supposed to or don't do what you ought not to do, then you don't have anything to worry about. Like my grandmother always said, "you should do what you are supposed to, like you ought to." If you get on the wrong side of it, you could wake up in shackles in the cargo hold of a very loud airplane and end up in a prison on foreign soil without even going before a judge or knowing what you are charged with. On the bright side, unless they put a muzzle on you, you can still say anything you want and your First Amendment rights would be in tact - its a right to speech, not to be heard. You speak with your mouth and listen with your ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.16.98.181 ( talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Article says "The only known civil criminal indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 . . ." . What's a "civil criminal indictment"? I assume that's a typo. 169.253.4.21 ( talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of examples of Jimmy Carter being accused of violating this act, like urging the governments of the UK, France, USSR and China to oppose Desert Storm. I'm surprised they haven't been added to the article yet. 72.43.153.30 ( talk) 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User John2510 removed this chunk of text from the "Constitutionality of the Act" section of the article.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[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." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of December 21, 1936: {{quotation|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. |
While the connection isn't explicit in the case ruling, it appears accepted; EG (from a quick search), "The Liberty-Speech Framework: Resolving the Tension Between Foreign Affairs Power and First Amendment Freedoms" (88 B.U. L. Rev. 749). It would seem to deserve reinsertion, though with an additional citation justifying the apparent relation to prevent complaints on WP:NOR. Abb3w ( talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add content on recent developments to this article? Such as this one? Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Is temporary protection possible at this time? Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've removed the bit about Pelosi's trip to Syria until consensus can be reached on what is appropriate to include here. With regard to the recent additions by Pudgenet:
She didn't go to "implement" the recommendations. She does not have the power to do so and did not do so, and you have no evidence that she did. She went to Syria in accordance with the general recommendation that the U.S. meet with Syria rather than ignoring them as the Bush administration has done. That does not mean she is trying to unilaterally create a new American policy towards Syria by going around the president. You say that "focusing on the fact of going to a foreign country against the executive's wishes entirely misses the point" — but you can't point to anything Pelosi did except for the fact that she went to Syria at all. And her trip was okayed by Bush (even though he obviously would have preferred that she not go) and the State Department ahead of time. The criticism from the White House has never been a statement that Pelosi went to Syria illegally or was not allowed to go — they just don't like the idea of American politicians meeting with the Syrian government. Dce7 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Some websites claim (without reference) that no one has been convicted of violating this law. Also, what was the nature of the 1994 revisions? What inspired them? -- KarlHallowell 19:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Following document claim some indicments
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
Neither Congressional leaders were investigated, much less indicted. -- Cowbert 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is unknown as to whether President Bush gave his consent to these trips or not.
False. From [2]:
Despite the Bush administration opposition, the State Department said it had briefed Pelosi's staff and was prepared to help on the ground in Syria.
The State Department is part of the executive branch and is under Bush's direct control. Such a briefing and a willingness "to help on the ground in Syria" amounts to consent to the trip — even though he would have preferred that Pelosi not go. Dce7 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The First Amendment states in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Apparently the authors of the Logan Act felt that the right to petition did not include a right for American citizens to make requests of or enter into contracts with foreign governments. The states were specifically prohibited from doing so in Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution but have to act through Congress. In the same section states are prohibited from interfering with the obligations of contracts and requires that any compact between states go through Congress.
The Tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Does this include the right of American citizens to contract outside the US or petition a foreign government? Perhaps, but the American courts would not necessarily have jurisdiction. Jbergquist 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Foreign trade is subject to federal law, i.e., the federal government may and does interfere with foreign trade. Is the Logan Act a trade barrier? Jbergquist 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that there are actions or forms of speech that may violate the terms of the Logan Act, but be constitutionally protected or be encompassed by the Act only due to the Act's broadness or vagueness. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Act, which has the effect of there being no challenges to the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is another example of a criminal statute that has never been enforced through prosecution, though has been the subject of much administrative and civil action. I am not sure whether the Logan Act has been applied administratively or civilly to prohibit acts or speech through means other than prosecution or to punish government employees for alleged violations under a lesser "civil standard" similar to the practice for alleged ADA violations. I question civil application of a statute written purely as a criminal law because it has the effect of civilly or administratively punishing a person for actions that may fail to meet the standard for criminal prosecution. The major exception here would be existence of evidence establishing guilt that is inadmissible in criminal court, but not prohibited from consideration in civil court or administratively. Most evidence, including unlawfully obtained evidence, is fair game outside of criminal prosecutions except evidence obtained through torture. The significant implication of administrative punishment is that a government employee could be fired for an alleged violation of the Logan Act without the necessary evidence for a criminal conviction. In the case of an employee who commits the alleged violation during the scope of employment is likely guilty of the improper conduct regardless of the terms of the Logan Act (i.e., attempting to negotiation or communicate with foreign governments outside the scope of an employee's duties). The constitutional implications arise for acts of an employee not involving the employee's duties or position. For a private citizen not employed by the government, civil or administrative action could result in injunctions with contempt enforcement and/or denial or termination of passports, licenses, contracts, grants, or any other action requiring approval of the government. I suppose if you do what you are supposed to or don't do what you ought not to do, then you don't have anything to worry about. Like my grandmother always said, "you should do what you are supposed to, like you ought to." If you get on the wrong side of it, you could wake up in shackles in the cargo hold of a very loud airplane and end up in a prison on foreign soil without even going before a judge or knowing what you are charged with. On the bright side, unless they put a muzzle on you, you can still say anything you want and your First Amendment rights would be in tact - its a right to speech, not to be heard. You speak with your mouth and listen with your ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.16.98.181 ( talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Article says "The only known civil criminal indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 . . ." . What's a "civil criminal indictment"? I assume that's a typo. 169.253.4.21 ( talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of examples of Jimmy Carter being accused of violating this act, like urging the governments of the UK, France, USSR and China to oppose Desert Storm. I'm surprised they haven't been added to the article yet. 72.43.153.30 ( talk) 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User John2510 removed this chunk of text from the "Constitutionality of the Act" section of the article.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[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." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of December 21, 1936: {{quotation|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. |
While the connection isn't explicit in the case ruling, it appears accepted; EG (from a quick search), "The Liberty-Speech Framework: Resolving the Tension Between Foreign Affairs Power and First Amendment Freedoms" (88 B.U. L. Rev. 749). It would seem to deserve reinsertion, though with an additional citation justifying the apparent relation to prevent complaints on WP:NOR. Abb3w ( talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add content on recent developments to this article? Such as this one? Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Is temporary protection possible at this time? Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)