JamesMadisonSkins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't think the Logan Act citation supports the notion that this is treason (which is, after all, punishable by death). A violation of federal law, maybe, but not treason. Well, to be fair, the "Logan Act" version of treason (at least as it's worded) is punishable for up-to 3 years ... think it was amended in 1994 ... probably because it became a lot easier to "interact" with foreign governments in dishonorable ways than say, back in 1799 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 No, it doesn't. ("Suggest" or even imply that it's "literally TREASON". It suggests that it might be a violation of the Logan Act. Fair enough, I made the assumption that because it was linked it fell under treason but apparently it is its own separate act. Gratzi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 And no,my previous post is not about splitting hairs. That's basic pre-law undergrad college stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Now I just took a quick glance on the definition of treason. The first thing it said, "the betrayal of ones country." How is what the GOP did is not betrayal? Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. And no, "aid and comfort" does not mean "saying something in public that some enemy likes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The link to the Logan Act seems to suggest otherwise? Also, I post links from all over the place. I tend to think one's voting record is a little more reflective of their (in)dependence than any specific link to a news story But that may explain why sometimes i'm called a stupid republican and other times i'm called a stupid democrat. Though maybe it's my fault for missing the theme, apparently I'm stupid either way I think the "Logan Act" doesn't define Treason, and is certainly not applicable in this situation as the letter was not an attempt to negotiate. I would also contend by the Treaty Clause, The United States Senate is within it's right to voice an opinion in the matter. (Again, I don't like the move but let's not redefine words) In order to be "literally quoting Huffington Post", he would have to be, you know, using quotation marks. Literally. I suppose plagiarize was the term I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't think I'd go so far as to call it treason as in punishable by death. But it is, at the very best, horribly misguided and essentially an open insult to the sitting president of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't think I'd go so far as to call it treason as in punishable by death. But it is, at the very best, horribly misguided and essentially an open insult to the sitting president of the United States. And The President has openly used his Office to spit in the face of both the Congress and Judicial Branch. I'm not saying one [many] wrong makes a right, but ease up on the woe is me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It's just unprecedented ... it's one thing to publicly state discontent for something like some Dems did for the Iraq war ... but the anti-war Dems never drafted (or would have) a letter directly to the Iraqi government behind Bush's back ... It's just the sort of unprecedented thing that this Congress keeps doing ... I just ... I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 unseemly behavior , but then most seems that way to me anymore http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/10/traitors-hardly-antagonizing-a-co-equal-branch-of-government-has-consequences/ it seems Congresscritters have a phone and a pen as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Vox: GOP senators explain why Iran can’t trust America in open letter Contains the actual letter, just in case anybody wants to actually read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 And The President has openly used his Office to spit in the face of both the Congress and Judicial Branch. I'm not saying one [many] wrong makes a right, but ease up on the woe is me. How is this "woe is me"? Like I said, I'd have the same reaction if it were Dems doing this to a Republican president. It really is unprecedented. And stop with the equivocation and goal post moving. You don't like things Obama has done and that's fine; there are plenty of things I disagree with as well. But this is it's own issue, and trying to bypass it by saying "well he did this" is ignoring the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It's just unprecedented ... it's one thing to publicly state discontent for something like some Dems did for the Iraq war ... but the anti-war Dems never drafted (or would have) a letter directly to the Iraqi government behind Bush's back ... It's just the sort of unprecedented thing that this Congress keeps doing ... I just ... I don't know. Apples and Oranges, as Obama is acting unilaterally and Bush was not. They could have written a letter, they didn't because they would have lost their jobs, quickly. Vox: GOP senators explain why Iran can’t trust America in open letter Contains the actual letter, just in case anybody wants to actually read it. I was looking for negation part where this Logan Act is coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yeah. Not Treason. 3 branches of Govt. Despite the desperation of the left to make everyone forget 2 of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Some demographics are more successful in mining the deposits of bigotry that remain in the tunnels of my head. I acknowledge the energy, dedication, and scope of their efforts. I've known more than a few God-fearing All-American Gopers who have said things along the lines of "it would be better if we could just ship out (or shoot) all the libs/dems." It bugs me how they intrude upon my proper disdain for that kind of mentality when they are able evoke a similar sentiment from me regarding their own contingent. Fortunately it is very fleeting and I see it for what it is in my self, but still, it ruins another chance to enjoy a Superior Dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 While it's not at the level of Nixon secretly communicating with Vietnam to scuttle President Johnson's peace treaty in 1968, this is a pretty blatant behind the back violation of the Logan Act by the morons. Ever more so, they can't even get constitutional law correct. Pretty amusing if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 My issue isn't that it undermines Obama or even that it may or may not be treason. My issue is the message it sends to Iran and in fact all other nations. In Iran's case it says... "There's absolutely nothing in it for you to negotiate because we have no intention of honoring treaties." In other words, the US Senate is encouraging Iran to become a nuclear state. This is green lighting their ambitions. Why not go for it if all the carrots and promises are moot? Conservatives are so crazed in their desire to hurt Obama that they don't care about the results. A nuclear Iran is something even Russia feared. And they're allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yeah. Not Treason. 3 branches of Govt. Despite the desperation of the left to make everyone forget 2 of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Congress doesn't ratify the treaties. They give consent to the President to ratify them. If you cannot see the distinction between the two - then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Putting aside the idiocracy of undermining the President, what the the heck is the GOP solution to Iran? Of course, it is nothing but the usual hot air that comes out of their collective butt. Quick to criticize, but incapable of proposing anything themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The GOP is essentially saying, through this letter, that they don't recognize Obama as the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The letter did, however, violate the Logan act - something that has been violated several times before without reprecussion. The main problem I have with it is that the author (Cotton) of the letter fancies himself a constitutional scholar and then says something so unconstitutional in the letter that one has to wonder what he studied. Cotton asserts, in the letter that, “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” The problem is, the Senate doesn't ratify treaties. From the Senate webpage, https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm can ya tell me what happens if they don't approve a resolution of ratification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 While it's not at the level of Nixon secretly communicating with Vietnam to scuttle President Johnson's peace treaty in 1968, this is a pretty blatant behind the back violation of the Logan Act by the morons. Ever more so, they can't even get constitutional law correct. Pretty amusing if you ask me. Is an "open letter" behind the back? Just how many dictionaries are we using in this thread. Can you show me where in the letter there is an attempt to negotiate? If not, it would appear to me (not the Constitutional Scholar so many in this thread are) The Logan act is not applicable. I'm also interested how the Logan Act was brought up to prove Treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This, combined with inviting the Israeli PM for a speech to Congress in the weeks before the Israeli elections ... also a pretty unprecedented move ... frowned upon both by Israelis and most in the U.S. It's just disrespect. As much as past presidents have been loathed publicly, nothing has been truly this undermining and disrespectful. I have no real idea why there is so much disrespect toward Obama, either. We have disagreements on policy, and then we have outright hatred. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 Is an "open letter" behind the back? Just how many dictionaries are we using in this thread. Can you show me where in the letter there is an attempt to negotiate? If not, it would appear to me (not the Constitutional Scholar so many in this thread are) The Logan act is not applicable. I'm also interested how the Logan Act was brought up to prove Treason. You can't be honestly defending this. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 And The President has openly used his Office to spit in the face of both the Congress and Judicial Branch. I'm not saying one [many] wrong makes a right, but ease up on the woe is me. Now there's some serious irony, there. (Not to mention a serious disconnect from reality.) An almost zen-like Yin and Yang between the first sentence, and the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You can't be honestly defending this. Really? Defending it and calling it Treason are 2 different things. Can we agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.