Pelosi's trips buying the GOP power?

[Mr.Vicchio]

After all the fuss of Nancy Pelosi heading to Syria, and the rumor she may go to Iran, one has to wonder if the the GOP can capitalize on her arrogance and turn this into something to work with in'08.

Personally I think they can, while I believe her behavior is borderline criminal as the WSJ pointed out, the best option available to the GOP is to stand back and let her forge the DNC right out of power in '08.

Of course, that also requires we get a darn candidate worth rooting for in '08 but that's not the big picture, the House and Senate races interest me more then the WH.

[brien]

Pelosi is an idiot and embarrasment to our nation. She should be working here at home to forge a consensus in Congress to end the war and she is out traipsing the globe pretending to be a Diplomat. Wonderful. She turns down an invitation to the WH to work on the stalled talks here in the US over funding the war, yet she turns around and considers visiting a country whose leaders have denied the halocaust. Great. Good thinking there Nancy. When you get your head out of your ass, you just may considering working for the American people in the Congress in which you were elected to work, and not pretending to be a Diplomat.

When will she ever do the work she was elected to do?

[Yarn]

World Public Opinion

75% of America supports speaking with Iran and Syria about stabilizing Iraq, though Pelosi talked with Syria about more then that. I suspect that the majority of American do support talking with Iran and Syria broadly, though I don't have proof of that.

Will they care about the infringement upon the state departments supposed sole authority to conduct diplomacy?

Maybe.

However the fact that 6 Republicans within a week of when Pelosi went to Syria went there is going to soften the blade the Republicans get from her trip a bit.

Pelosi is an idiot and embarrasment to our nation. She should be working here at home to forge a consensus in Congress to end the war and she is out traipsing the globe pretending to be a Diplomat.

She was only overseas for what a week, and i'm sure she learned plenty worthwhile in the process. Shouldn't the speaker of the house have an accurate good picture of the countries the United States has to deal with?

Wonderful. She turns down an invitation to the WH to work on the stalled talks here in the US over funding the war,

Whats there to work on when the president won't budge, and neither will she? Criticize obstancy if you want, but not the inclination not to waste time.

yet she turns around and considers visiting a country whose leaders have denied the halocaust. Great.

I've read one of her collegues on the trip wanted to go to Iran, but couldn't get travel authority from that country to go there, and suspected that Pelosi would not have minded going there.

When has she said she considered visiting Iran?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Don't matter if 100% of the American People want talks with Iran(and I find that site and it's poll suspect but that's neither hear nor there) the fact remains, that's not her job, position, title or granted power to go talk to anyone.

[bishop]

it's wishful thinking to assume that pelosi's trip helped republicans in any way whatsoever - little different to the way that trips by republicans didn't help their party either.

[Slevin57]

I think we should charge her with providing aid and comfort to the enemy, just to be funny.

Seriously, she has no place in Iran, Syria or anywhere else. She knows as well as anyone that there are proper channels to go through. Let's see her go to Iran and get taken hostage.

[Yarn]

Don't matter if 100% of the American People want talks with Iran(and I find that site and it's poll suspect but that's neither hear nor there) the fact remains, that's not her job, position, title or granted power to go talk to anyone.

Thats an opinion. The mainstream media seems to be giviing the constitutional arguement next to no attention because it is not being made by anyone prominent, which means republicans would be introducing it to people in their campains if they were to utilize it, though I don't get why they would then if they aren't now.

The constitution gives the president the power to make treaties, but requires them to be ratified by two thirds congress. It gives the president the power to nominate ambassadors but requires them to be accepted by an majority of congress.

It says nothing on anyone getting the power of foreign policy, yet shares the powers it gives related to it with the two elected branches.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yarn...

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.

US CODE: Title 18,953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

That's the Logan Act, she technically violated it, and theoretically could be charged with it. Wouldn't be a very smart thing politically seeing as no one has ever BEEN charged with it, that's not the point.

The question of the legality of Pelosi's actions has been raised due to the fact that it is a felony for government officials such as Pelosi to conduct their own negotiations with other heads of state without the expressed consent of the executive branch. However, the questions raised as a result of her recent trip to the Middle East do not worry Madam Speaker Pelosi. She stated that she doesn't understand how her actions affected anything several thousand miles away back in the United States. This is but the most recent clash between the Democratic held congress and the Bush Administration.

Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Trip to Syria a Felony? - Associated Content

[Chaossaber314]

The title and then the actual wording of that law are contradictory. As far as the law is concerned, there's a very big difference between "Private correspondence" and "Any correspondence", both phrases having been used.

If we follow the private correspondence line, her trip was hardly private having been discussed on these boards, across the rest of the web, and every arm of the media.

[Yarn]

Why would the Logan Act apply to her but not the president?

The only people who can undeniably be said to have "the authority of the United States" behind them in their diplomatic work are those who have been granted the right to conduct diplomacy by presidential nomination and congressional approval.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, Yarn... the Executive Branch does all that good stuff. That's why it wouldn't apply.

[Yarn]

So because the president tends to talk to foreign leaders, he has the authority of the United States to?

We'll congress members tend to talk to foreign leaders as we'll, and at any rate the fact that something is or is not status quo is irrelevant to its legality.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Don't matter if 100% of the American People want talks with Iran(and I find that site and it's poll suspect but that's neither hear nor there) the fact remains, that's not her job, position, title or granted power to go talk to anyone.

The Republicans (did you forget about them?) and Pelosi can speak to any world leader and publicly disagree with US foreign policy. Where does the US Constitution explicitly prohibit this? Article 2, Section 2 is vague, like much of the US Constitution on such matters. The president can make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and move militaries--that's it. Nothing more. The US constitution doesn't give the president any power to limit discussions overseas by members of Congress. He can criticize. He can throw tantrums. He call challenge people's patriotism. That's it.

The Logan Act would apply to the Republican delegations also. To suggest that Pelosi violated this act and not every single Republican who met Assad before and after Pelosi's visit is the worst kind hypocrisy. That's exactly what the Wall Street Journal editorial did--they singled out Pelosi for prosecution under the Logan Act. Can't you see the double standard there?

In any case, I wouldn't mind if Bush prosecuted Pelosi. The case would go to the Supreme Court--along with the Republican cases--and we would finally learn the constitutionality of that law. Bring it on.

[bishop]

all of this is little more than flailing by demoralized republicans as far as i'm concerned.

and, it's always fun to highlight the ignorance of bush's apologists when it comes to talking about the law - something they've held in contempt for far too long now.

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law

Why Pelosi's Trip Did Not Violate Federal Law You may read accusations that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi violated a federal law known as the Logan Act when she traveled to Damascus to discuss Middle East diplomacy with Syrian President Bashar Assad. History, however, shows that these accusations will hold no legal status. The Logan Act, originally enacted in 1799 and amended in 1994, prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Despite numerous judicial references to the Act, the Congressional Research Service has discovered no prosecutions under the Logan Act in its more than 200 years of existence. It has, however, served as the basis for several political challenges, not unlike those now being launched against Speaker Pelosi. In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with Cuban officials. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State declared: "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." The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip. Some other Americans accused of, but never prosecuted for violating the Logan Act include Ross Perot for his efforts to locate U.S. POWs in Southeast Asia and former Speaker of the House Jim Wright for his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson's trips to Syria, Cuba and Nicaragua drew accusations of Logan Act violations from President Reagan. And who can forget Jane Fonda's many controversial trips to Southeast Asia in protest of the Vietnam War? Yet, as far as the Congressional Research Service has been able to determine, no American has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

for those who would still maintain that pelosi violated the law, i wouldn't hold your breath.

continuing to attempt to make an issue out of this, when the majority of americans believe her trip was a good thing, will do the exact opposite of buying the GOP power in the next election cycle..

[Mr.Vicchio]

No one she indeed had, and if you note I point out how poor such an attempt to go after her on those grounds would be.

I know bishop you want the Dems in power and take great joy in slamming the GOP, you're perspective is predictable as usual. Most American's aren't impressed with Pelosi's armature diplomacy, and I think more of this behavior merely helps the GOP win in '08.

[brien]

I don't think she violated the letter of the law, but when she and her delgation said: "We will present a alternative Democratic Foreign Policy" they are violating the spirit of Article 2, Section 2, in the Constitution. Do I think this is open to prosecution? Nope. But it sure sows the seeds of confusion to foreign nations.

I don't want to rehash everything I have written in this thread but, it seems as though this isn't a partisian issue. Both parties are guilty of it. This is what makes it so despicable. When foreign nations are not happy with the Department of State, they merely need to make overtures to their Congressman "du jour" and convince them to help them in their needs and desires from the US rather than go through protocol and the State Department.

I say, if Americans want to conduct foreign policy, real or perceived, by using roving Congressional delegations, then they shouldn't complain when the FP of the US is a confusing failure because no one will be united to present one FP of the US. If American can't see the danger in this, they deserve what they get in Foreign relations with future generations. This is yet just another example of the disunity of Americans sowed by the seeds of discontent and nourished by the minerals of impatience to have their own way immediately. Sad, very sad.:(

btw; bishop wrote:

when the majority of americans believe her trip was a good thing,

Any stats on this Bish? The Washington Post, the NY Times, as well as many other major newspapers in this country condemned her trip. So, just who is supporting it? Let's see who they are so we can evaluate their motives and reasoning.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No one she indeed had, and if you note I point out how poor such an attempt to go after her on those grounds would be.

No, Mr. Vicchio, you said of Pelosi and the Logan Act: "she technically violated it." The State Department opinion posted by Bishop directly refutes that claim:

"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."

"The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip."

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I know bishop you want the Dems in power and take great joy in slamming the GOP, you're perspective is predictable as usual.

Bishop seems fair on this thread. You on the other hand can't even bring yourself to mention the Republican delegations that preceded and followed Pelosi's bipartisan delegation in Damascus. That omission is glaring.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Most American's aren't impressed with Pelosi's armature diplomacy, and I think more of this behavior merely helps the GOP win in '08.

Are you speaking for most Americans? Do you have a poll or two to back up this claim?

[bishop]

Quote by: vicchio I know bishop you want the Dems in power and take great joy in slamming the GOP, you're perspective is predictable as usual. Most American's aren't impressed with Pelosi's armature diplomacy, and I think more of this behavior merely helps the GOP win in '08.

as usual, you're either baiting or speaking out of blanket ignorance. don't claim to know anything about what i think unless you can support those allegations, which you can't.

i am not interested in seeing either party in power, as they're both equally corrupt and equally beholden to corporate interests. i don't plan on voting for either, save ron paul who is the only true republican on the party's ticket. and regardless, so long as i'm in MA, the state will go to the democrats thanks to our worthless electoral college system.

but i digress, this is just some sorry GOP flailing in my eyes. the next election is not going to be decided on pelosi's trip to syria.

[brien]

Mr Vic wrote:

I know bishop you want the Dems in power

I don't think this is the case at all. Although I am not attempting to speak for Bishop, I am saying that each Party is responsible for this type of behavior. Once it is an accepted way to conduct FP, each major Party will seek to undermine the Department of State in order to further their own agenda in FP abroad. What a great way to conduct FP. A foolish path to FP indeed.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The electoral college is worthless? Oookay.

Anyway Decider I merely stated "technically and Theoretically" violated it, I.E. I could in fact have been wrong and left the door open for that.

Bishop, you say you are for neither party, but I just hear you side with the Dems against Bush. Ron Paul has no chance in hell of ever sitting in the WH, he's a great guy, but reality > RP Sorry.