Nothing treasonous about reminding public of Congress’ role in treaties
An open letter constitutes treason now? That seems a bit extreme. Or perhaps it’s indicative of a certain strain of thinking on the liberal-left end of the political spectrum, where dissent was the “highest form of patriotism” until Jan. 20, 2009. Treason nowadays seems to depend on who is the ox and who does the goring. Was it wise of those 47 senators to sign on to Sen. Cotton’s letter? Probably not. But that’s a much different question concerning politics, not legality. It isn’t the least bit plausible to argue these senators committed treason or violated the Logan Act of 1799, which forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government ... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” The law - which has never been successfully used - includes a critical caveat: “without authority of the United States.” Perhaps that’s why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., faced no legal sanction when she visited Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007 over the objections of President Bush. Or why certain Democratic senators, including current Secretary of State John Kerry, didn’t face prosecution for visiting Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in 1985 as Ronald Reagan’s administration backed rebels fighting that Marxist regime. Once again, this is about the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the president and Congress. The president gets to conduct foreign policy and negotiate treaties. But Congress must ratify those agreements for them to carry legal force. President Obama said last fall that he would bypass Congress if he needed to in order to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. He’s free to do so - as long as the agreement is nonbinding. So the senators’ open letter is as much of a reminder to the president and his liberal supporters as it is to the Iranian government: Do not ignore the U.S. Constitution when negotiating terms of this deal. Congress has a say, too. Otherwise, Obama’s executive agreement will likely have an expiration date of Jan. 20, 2017. Ben Boychuk (bboychuk@city-journal.org) is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.Nothing treasonous about reminding public of Congress’ role in treaties
An open letter constitutes treason now? That seems a bit extreme. Or perhaps it’s indicative of a certain strain of thinking on the liberal-left end of the political spectrum, where dissent was the “highest form of patriotism” until Jan. 20, 2009.Treason nowadays seems to depend on who is the ox and who does the goring.Was it wise of those 47 senators to sign on to Sen. Cotton’s letter? Probably not. But that’s a much different question concerning politics, not legality.It isn’t the least bit plausible to argue these senators committed treason or violated the Logan Act of 1799, which forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government ... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”The law - which has never been successfully used - includes a critical caveat: “without authority of the United States.”Perhaps that’s why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., faced no legal sanction when she visited Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007 over the objections of President Bush. Or why certain Democratic senators, including current Secretary of State John Kerry, didn’t face prosecution for visiting Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in 1985 as Ronald Reagan’s administration backed rebels fighting that Marxist regime.Once again, this is about the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the president and Congress. The president gets to conduct foreign policy and negotiate treaties. But Congress must ratify those agreements for them to carry legal force.President Obama said last fall that he would bypass Congress if he needed to in order to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. He’s free to do so - as long as the agreement is nonbinding.So the senators’ open letter is as much of a reminder to the president and his liberal supporters as it is to the Iranian government: Do not ignore the U.S. Constitution when negotiating terms of this deal. Congress has a say, too.Otherwise, Obama’s executive agreement will likely have an expiration date of Jan. 20, 2017.Ben Boychuk (bboychuk@city-journal.org) is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.
