[lit-ideas] Re: None dare call it treason
- From: "Judith Evans" <judith.evans001@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:15:55 +0100
Apparently she's thinking of the Logan Act:
"Night of the Unliving Logan Act [Matthew J. Franck]
On the Corner, Amy Holmes asks whether there is anything to be done about
Barack Obama's behavior in Iraq in July-if he did, as Amir Taheri writes,
try to negotiate with the Iraqi government in such a way as to undermine
Bush administration relations with it. Amy mentions something called the
International Commerce Act of 1798 that Obama might have violated; I think
she is actually referring to what is popularly called the Logan Act passed
by Congress the following year (which Jonah mentioned in passing earlier
yesterday).
In 209 years, there has never been a single prosecution under the Logan Act,
although the frequency with which private citizens (think Jesse Jackson) and
non-executive branch officials (think of the whole laughable career of Joe
Biden) attempt to influence foreign governments contrary to U.S. policy has
kept the Act "alive" in the realm of political controversy.
Some commentators see constitutional defects in the Logan Act. They may be
right. Here's the whole text of the Act as it still appears in the U.S.
Code:
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.
I'll ask my favorite former federal prosecutor, Andy McCarthy: how would you
like to prosecute a case under this statutory language? There are all kinds
of problems with vagueness, overbreadth, evidentiary sufficiency-before we
ever get to the First Amendment free-speech problems. As long as this dead
letter remains on the books, its greatest utility is as a symbolic club to
beat one's political opponents vigorously about the head and shoulders.
This use of it I can heartily endorse. But in a court of law? Let's not. "
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTEzNmIyNTc0MmZhNDE2OGUxZmUzNDk5ZmJiMTZmZjE=
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:04 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: None dare call it treason
Judy,
You're right. I missed the reference. I am utterly out of the habit of
evaluating all those little DOS-type carrots.
My recollection is that Julie was sending me to site after site without
digesting the site information or commenting on why I should read the
information on the sites she was sending me to.
The legality of Obama's actions have been discussed in more than one
place.
Others are becoming interested. The site I posted was the first one that
provided come legal details.
Here it is again: "What does the Constitution have to say about such an
act?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
