Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[rmnunez]

I'm not so sure about that interpretation of the expression "authority of the United States", this can be resolved considering legislative intent when the Logan Act was passed. Details providing historical context and reference to discussion of the legislation may be available to shed more light on who has said authority. Given that the law is directed at restricting interaction with foreign sovereigns, the question may have come up before if any other legislator ever sought to conduct international relations in person with foreign government leaders.

What about the constitutional question of the permissibility of a member of the Congress engaging in diplomatic discussions with a foreign nation? Frankly, it troubles me -or it would do so if Pelosi were purporting to speak on behalf of the US. I think there's much to be said for the notion that insofar as actual US communications with the outside world are concerned, the President is to be (in Marshall's famous words) the "sole organ" by which US policy is conveyed (consistent, again, with statutory direction). More broadly, as far as official US execution of the law is concerned, Congress and its members and/or agents can have no role, once the process of bicameralism and presentment is completed. Or so say Chadha, Bowhser, WMATA, Buckley, etc., anyway. For me, then, it would be important to know in what capacity Pelosi was purporting to speak. If she were "only" conveying the views of the opposition party (or of a prominent private person) and not purporting to speak for the US, then I don't think there'd be much of a constitutional problem, however imprudent or inadvisable her actions might arguably have been. Again, I assume that State Department officials were with her, and that to the extent her views were inconsistent with the official US views, that would have been made known to Syria in no uncertain terms. If that's the case, I think the problems, if any, are not constitutional. But if Pelosi (or any of the other numerous congressional officials who have long engaged in diplomacy with foreign nations) purported to be speaking on behalf of the Nation, it would raise constitutional questions. Dorf on Law: Logan Act follow-up

[Yarn]

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act, which was pushed through by the Federalist majority (60-46 in the House; and 22-10 in the Senate) with relatively little debate.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Background

Wikipedia is three quarters as accurate as one of the most well reputed encyclopedias in the world:
-http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

Given that the law is directed at restricting interaction with foreign sovereigns

Completely untrue.
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

the question may have come up before if any other legislator ever sought to conduct international relations in person with foreign government leaders.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.

In an opinion written by Justice Sutherland, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments and found in favor of the government. The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not. The Court stated that "there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.

I ought to be suprised this case has not been mentioned in this thread earlier. Most of us at volconvo (myself included perhaps), don't do enough research.

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], 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. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.
-US State Department
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Scope_and_intent_of_the_Act

while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly.

Obviously Pelosi's trip was conducted on behalf of the United States, and was self confessedly conducting foreign policy, alternative to that demanded by the President. It was therefore illegal, as it was unconstitutional (at least according to court precedent, which is law...).

Whether or not it neccessarily broke the Logan Act is a seperate question, and still depends upon the defenition of the "Authority of the United States". However, I don't really wish to debate about whether it broke the Logan Act further, because I don't think we can further that debate more then we already have, and to continue it on my part would be petty considering that it has at this point in time been realized that Pelosi's trip was unconstitutional.

Whether or not it was beneficial to the interests of United States is also a seperate question, one to whose answer I still disagree with you on.

[rmnunez]

Thanks to Pelosi, relations with Syria are now at Ministerial levels:

Rice said she delivered a "strong message" Thursday to Syria's foreign minister about foreign fighters who are crossing Syria's borders into Iraq. Rice met with Waleed Moallem in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh -the first high-level meeting between the two countries in 2½ years. Rice said the talks were limited to Iraqi security. "I made clear we don't want to have a difficult relationship with Syria, but we need to have some basis for a better relationship." U.S. and Syria discuss foreign fighters in Iraq - CNN.com

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez Thanks to Pelosi, relations with Syria are now at Ministerial levels:

Pelosi forced Rice to meet with the Syrians? She's more powerful than I had thought!

[rmnunez]

I should think so, after all, if the head of state of Syria (a tyrannical dictator who succeded his father and has likewise been documented to practice political repression, including extrajudicial mass executions) chooses to communicate with his prior official US government interlocutor (Ms Pelosi) -he must do so through Ministerial channels (Ms Rice).

It is established Pelosi led the way to meet Assad and chat with him on foreign policy matters, she also tried to broker a peace treaty with Israel and says she reiterated the official line. Suppose proposed improved relations, trade, review of whatever claims. Suppose as well that Assad said he'd think about it. So, now that he has considered Ms Pelosi's proposals, how does he tell her? Send her an email, give her a call, letter in a diplomatic pouch, message through his ambassador? Its an official statement from a head of state, this has direct impact on international law and relations between the parties, so this will be done protocolarily. The proper level is precisely through the Secretary of State.

While the US executive and its Secretary of State can perfectly well shun the Syrians at Sharm el Sheik or elsewhere, these have a just as perfectly good justification in approaching the united statians; "message for your Speaker".

No harm done though, the note says the US military monitoring the situation has recorded a diminution in Syrian unlawful border crossings into Iraq, apparently Assad is heeding Bush's admonitions Ms Pelosi says she reiterated.