47 Ronin

[Jack Sawyer]

Where does it say Congress can't intrude. The wording of the law in the link is so vague that it basically says that somebody being treasonous is being treasonous. There would need to be another law saying that Congress is "unauthorized" to correspond with foreign governments. I doubt that law exists. It sorta couldn't exist since Congress is the lawmaker and if it doesn't have authorization to grant authorization then nobody has authorization.

Right here. 1st line:

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613
, 18 U.S.C. § 953
, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S

Congress is a collection of unauthorised citizens because they have had no seat at the fucking negotiating table. Or am I looking at it wrong?

[wufwugy]

Right here. 1st line:


Congress is a collection of unauthorised citizens because they have had no seat at the fucking negotiating table. Or am I looking at it wrong?

Congress does have a seat at the negotiating table. The executive doesn't set law. Those senators are fully within their rights to say they do not legally support actions of the executive.

The first problem with using Logan's is that we have to qualify "unathorized". Unless there is some law saying otherwise, congress is very authorized. Furthermore, the law doesn't say anything about going against the president, but against the US. If we're fighting over who is "more US", the legislature or the executive, the answer is the legislature.

For the most part, the legislature doesn't openly get in the way of the executive on issues of foreign policy because a unified front works best and both parties agree. But that tradition doesn't mean that it's illegal to not do so. I personally support this tactic because I think the Obama administration is making the wrong moves. Even if I agreed with it philosophically, the administration should know that its approach is awful and only making things worse. Of course that has been a criticism that has been around for many years, yet the administration doesn't think it's accurate so it keeps making the same mistakes.

The Obama administration is the one going against decades of established foreign policy doctrine. He hasn't demonstrated that he's making good foreign policy decisions. In fact, he has been the spearhead with which the position of the US on foreign policy has weakened. There is a lot in his philosophy of foreign policy I could say I agree with, but the reaction of his constituents on this matter isn't substantive.