Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders

They’re Trying to Destroy the Founding Fathers’ Vision of Separation of Powers

We’ve repeatedly pointed out that America is being decimated by the break down in the separation of powers between different branches of government.

The latest example is Congressional violation of the Logan Act. Specifically, the Logan Act – enacted in 1799 –  states:

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.

The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a  Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.


Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

I happen to think that Obama is a tyrant who – like Bush – should be impeached for trampling the Constitution.  But two wrongs don’t make a right …

In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.

Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act.   Indeed, the Senator who organized the effort admitted that his intent was to sabotage negotiations with Iran.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • haifisch8587

    And where does Dennis Rodman and his visit to PRK fit into this?

    • Stretch

      Dennis Rodman has no political authority you twit

    • busmans

      It doesn’t fit into this. Dennis Rodman isn’t a politician. Your little cartoon doesn’t fit anywhere either. It’s also false, as Hilary is openly revealing those emails.

      • haifisch8587

        Judging by the moronic post above, perhaps you should all accomany Rodmann on his next visit and report back on his reason for visiting. Here is a troll avatar you can freely use when you venture out from under your bridge hidie holes

    • VD65

      Have a little class. This has nothing at all to do with this article. You use it as a means to demean someone and grandstand.

    • LaDon Aridge

      Wow are you really that dense. He visited North Korea. Visiting a foreign country and even befriending it’s leaders is not negotiating on behalf of the United States.
      I went to Cancun last year, does that mean I was negotiating with Mexico?

  • Carroll Price

    Like the former Soviet Union, America has a fine set of well written laws (like the Logan Act) that look good on paper but are seldom if ever enforced.

  • imongo

    Fantastic, playing at Obama’s game. This should shake things up a bit. Every executive order signed by our esteemed president is only worth the paper it is applied too. I guess this applies to all the branches now. Supreme court is next. Who needs the rule of law? Seems to work out well for Chicago.

    • The president has broken no laws. He is a constitutional law professor. What are are your qualifications. Fox News watcher?

      • RegEx

        Constitutional law professor. What a joke. And of course he has broken laws. When a president, by choice, ignores statute or arbitrarily just does away with it, as he has portions of the ACA, that is breaking the law. When he, through his Attorney General, refuses to prosecute criminals and selectively prosecutes others, that’s breaking the law. And his refusal to negotiate in good faith with House & Senate Republicans, while not illegal, is unconscionable.

        • Dave P

          Isn’t that exactly what these congressmen just did? They ignored the Logan
          Act and have intentionally tried to scuttle our elected President’s negotiations. They all (every one of them) need to go to jail!!

        • busmans

          In terms of ACA, the Supreme Court of the United States disagree with your assessment.

          The DoJ, or anyone else for that matter, not prosecuting people (I assume you mean bankers in this case?) is not illegal. In fact, the Bush Administration communicated in private with leaders of Enron to ensure that they would be protected. Not to mention the myriad controversies and coverups with Blackwater, commuting Libby after the Valerie Plame affair, shielding Rumsfeld during the Generals Revolt against him, shielding Gonzales amid various controversies, etc etc.

          The refusal to negotiate in good faith came directly FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in several statements made by McConnell, Boehner, and other Republican leadership. Obama directly addressed Congress about this years ago, but the refusal has remained and has remained mutual.

          • RegEx

            The Supreme Court has not disagreed with my comments. It has never even heard any of the issues where the president violated the law. Clueless.

          • busmans

            The only possible issue was the individual mandate. That’s the one that was heard and judged to be constitutional. What issues are you conjuring up??

        • VD65

          Yes, he taught Constitutional law in Chicago at the university there for 12 years. Don’t you research before you state nothing more than an opinion? He also has a Juris Doctorate in law and got it magna cum laude. He was the first black man to be the Editor of the Harvard News Review. The ACA can be amended and there can be temporary exceptions made. You are not the Supreme Court nor a law professor as I am not but at least I have fact checked things. You are totally ill informed. Sometimes the Supreme Court will not agree with a President but that doesn’t mean they have broken the law if they do so. Just because some Republican makes outrageous claims it doesn’t mean they are right. I have read some of the lame things some have stated and seen the fact checking done on it. I’m a registered Republican but ashamed the party has stooped so low. It is not Obama refusing to negotiate it is the GOP until he has stopped trying. He tried and tried and they always said no or put strings attached. The House especially cares little about how anything affects the citizens or wannabe citizens. It is shameful and shameful to accuse the wrong person of things they didn’t do but has been libeled around the net and only those totally uninformed listens to it or blinded by party BS. None of them are perfect but the scales clearly lean towards total disobedience of Constitutional law. There are no grey lines on this one. You can’t cover it up by trying to point the finger at someone else trying to make it right. The subject is what the House and Senate did and what they did broke law and they have to be accountable for it but the President can legally take Executive actions and if the GOP doesn’t like his ideas they can just say he is breaking the law because most don’t know any better and will believe anything they say. This time they really goofed and I hope they are made to pay for it.

          • RegEx

            “Teaching Constitutional Law” doesn’t make one a “Constitutional Law Professor.”

          • Psygn

            Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.

          • KhadijahMuhammad

            He was a lecturer, which regardless of “how he was regarded” is low man on any University totem pole.
            .
            That aside, knowledge of the law does not prevent someone from breaking it. Pretty sure that everyone convicted of murder each year knew it was against the law before they did it.

          • RegEx

            Yes, they did, and they would have said anything at all to help get him elected.

            The man clearly does not understand even the most basic aspects of the Constitution. Separation of powers; advise and consent; the legislative process. All lost on him.

            But the skill he is most lacking? Negotiating. He simply doesn’t know how to do it. He’s had his way to the point where he thinks he need only demand and the world will follow. Also known as “arrogance”.

            If a person wants to be respected he needs to earn the respect. Barack Obama has never earned anyone’s respect. He tries to take it by force, and while he can drag the left wing nutjobs along in that way, thoughtful people do not respond to attempts to take things by force.

          • Jonathan Osborne

            He is very knowledgable, but you’re not able to see that as you’re letting FOX do all your thinking for you. Your comment about Obama not being able to negotiate is hillarious! Despite all the racist, criminal and disrespect the Republicans have shown him, he has tried to extend a hand to the right. However, even though the job of politics is to reach compromises, the Republicans see every compromise as failure to their party. They constantly put party ahead of nation on every issue. They even publicly stated that their ONLY concern was making sure Obama was a one term President and they failed at that. Your ignorace is just laughable as it is disproved by pretty much the most basic of observations.

            Stop bothering adults with your blather… in fact, it isn’t even yours. It is the blather that FOX replaced your thoughts with.

          • Jonathan Osborne

            Stop and re-read your sentence. Really.

          • RegEx

            “He also has a Juris Doctorate in law and got it magna cum laude.”

            There is absolutely no evidence to this effect. And I have never read a more FOS post than yours.

        • paula denmon

          I was right the first time. Reply straight from Fox.

          • Marcos

            How would you know it’s straight from Fox? Are you or do you watch Fox? I’m guessing no

        • Ian

          The only joke here is you.

        • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

          I hate him and therefore he’s a criminal – he must be a criminal because I hate him. He’s mean too.

          • RegEx

            I don’t hate him, he is a criminal, and he is, frankly, just not very smart. Which is the reason that he has no real accomplishments to his credit, even after six years in the presidency. Worst. President. Ever.

          • der_wotan

            Well you show your white colors – you and the TeaPity folks from day one have used all the possible synonyms to mask their racism against the first elected black President.
            I don’t think any more very highly of his policies, after seeing him in action over six years and the ‘broken’ promise of change he would bring to the White House, But the disgrace the GOp and their regressive Kochsuckers bring about is very literally gutter-talk of the FOX News class.

          • busmans

            In all of your myriad, rabbly posts, I don’t think you’ve provided a single piece of actual information or evidence to support your outlandish claims.

            Obama got us out of a worldwide recession, the biggest since the Great Depression, through several economic stimuli. He ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA. He normalized relations with Cuba. He oversaw the killing of Bin Laden and Gaddafi. He reversed the downward spiral of unemployment. He insured millions of Americans. He preserved Net Neutrality.

            Now lets compare that to George W Bush…….
            I honestly can’t think of a single Bush accomplishment besides his phenomenal work against AIDS in Africa. To this day we’re still dealing with the War on Terror, No Child Left Behind, and the PATRIOT Act, and lets not even discuss Katrina.

          • RegEx

            How about the absurdity of your claim that this idiot “got us out of a recession?” Hell, he dragged what should have been a fast turnaround into something requiring more than six years for any recovery to begin, and even today, the jobs situation is just terrible. Why? Because, like FDR, he foolishly drove up the costs of hiring. Business had no confidence, he wasted money, massively increased the national debt, and generally mismanaged the country.

            There is so much idiotic bullcrap in your post I’m not addressing it. The Net Neutrality nonsense is just funny. For no reason, whatsoever, he dumped the same kind of regulation on it that had AT&T stuck in a rut for decades.

            Fools. All of you. Gullible and you deserve what you get.

          • Gwen Carter

            With specificity please explain how the GOP would have handled it better.

            “President Obama’s first attempt at a “Grand Bargain” was, from a progressive perspective, a genuinely horrible idea. The proposal, which was tilted heavily in Republicans’ favor, trading some new tax revenue for massive entitlement cuts. Fortunately for liberals, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said any plan that calls for any GOP concessions must be rejected.

            The White House tried again with another offer on a big deficit-reduction package earlier this year, with the president prepared to accept Medicare reforms and even “chained CPI” in Social Security in exchange for Republican concessions on taxes. Again, the GOP wasn’t interested.”

            http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-offers-another-bargain-house-g

            “WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, the man who spent significant portions of the last Congress shuttling to and from the White House for fiscal talks with President Obama that ultimately failed twice to produce a grand bargain, has come around to the idea that the best negotiations are no negotiations.

            As the president and Congressional Democrats have tried to force Mr. Boehner back to the table for talks to head off the automatic budget cuts set to take effect on Friday, Mr. Boehner has instead dug in deeper, refusing to even discuss an increase in revenue and insisting in his typical colorful language that it was time for the Senate to produce a measure aimed at the cuts.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/house-republicans-cheer-boehners-refusal-to-negotiate-on-cuts.html

            Filibusters:

            “In 2007, with a new Democratic majority in Congress for the final two years of the Bush presidency, it was Republican filibusters that stymied Democrats trying to send legislation to Bush that he would be forced to veto. And with Barack Obama’s presidency, Republican filibusters or threats of filibuster escalated in ways the Senate had never seen before. The rule had not changed, but the norms were blown up. Filibusters were used not simply to block legislation or occasional nominations, but routinely, even on matters and nominations that were entirely uncontroversial and ultimately passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The idea of a filibuster as the expression of a minority that felt so intensely that it would pull out all the stops to try to block something pushed by the majority went by the boards. This was a pure tactic of obstruction, trying to use up as much of the Senate’s most precious commodity—time—as possible to screw up the majority’s agenda.”

            “The refusal of Senate Republicans to work out a compromise to restore long-standing practices and norms has backfired on them big time. As Jonathan Bernstein has noted, the power of the hold—a notice by an individual senator that he or she will object to unanimous consent on a nomination, in effect, a threat of time-consuming filibuster—has been dramatically reduced. So the leverage of individual senators to use the hold to extract other concessions is no longer what it was, to the detriment, especially, of the minority party. When Cruz complains about the majority now being able to ram through the confirmation of David Barron without the release of the legal memos, he can blame himself; if he had been a part of a Gang of 14, he would have more leverage now.”

            http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/why-we-can-t-stop-talking-about-filibusters-20140514

            “That’s what it means to have a 60-vote Senate, which is what Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans declared as soon as Obama was elected. Almost every measure and, until Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats invoked the nuclear option last fall, almost every nomination, had to have 60 or more votes to pass. That’s a filibuster.”

            http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-09/all-filibusters-all-the-time

            The US did not get into that mess quickly therefore we should not get out of it quickly. Since the GOP decided day one to block everything, and since it take 6yrs to clean up the mess the GOP created in the first place the only group who should be held accountable for that is the GOP.

      • macsimcon

        Now wait just a second. President Obama HAS broken the law.

        The Supreme Court said in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that President Bush couldn’t detain Americans without due process, but you think it’s perfectly acceptable that President Obama can kill Americans on foreign soil WITHOUT due process?

        That’s just not logical. If you can’t be imprisoned without due process, you certainly can’t be killed without due process. President Obama (and President Bush with the few drone strikes he ordered) broke the law over and over again by killing Americans who hadn’t been convicted of any crime.

        Moreover, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama into law, specifically allows the President to detain Americans indefinitely without due process. This EXPLICITLY contradicts the Hamdi decision. If that’s not breaking the law, I don’t know what is.

        It is behavior such as this which leads Republicans and conservatives to brand the President as a king, or tyrant, or dictator. We Democrats and liberals need to stand with them in requiring ALL presidents to seek oversight before they start blowing people away.

    • Marsha Matthews

      Please provided empirical, irrefutable evidence of what laws POTUS has broken. I’ll give you a hint: It took the Weeper of the House a while to come up with a reason to file his silly little lawsuit …

  • Laws are for the little people. The powerful can and do ignore them.

  • Democrats would be immediately before a furious COMMITTEE if they had done this. TREASON.

    • Evony Master

      Treason? How does this aide or enemy again? Remember, Iran WANTS this deal.

      • Kneel

        read logan act.

        • macsimcon

          I’m not sure you could charge the 47 senators with treason, but they definitely violated the Logan Act. The President ratifies a treaty after receiving the Senate’s consent, and that’s the only foreign policy input that the Senate gets.

          Here’s a conservative’s take, and I think he’s right: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

          • beauford

            this is not the first time the GOP has violated the Logan act. Richard Nixon also did the same. The GOP has been crazy ever since that black man got in THEIR white house. they r nothing but a bunch of racist. Y was there was no outcry when Israel lied about their nuclear program. some need to take the time to read about Israel and their lies.

          • Marcos

            Nancy Pelosi met with Assad Bashar to try sabotage Bush. Senator Obama also sent a delegation to Iran to stop Bush as well

          • Pixy Misa

            Advise and consent. Not just consent.

          • Tommy

            It’s not a treaty which is where advice and consent come in.

          • aes sidhe

            Actually , no they did not violate the Logan Act. It specifically states CITIZENS and senators/representatives do not fall under this category. You and I, however, would be in violation if we sent a letter. On the other hand, where was your outlet age when Pelosi WENT TO SYRIA? Double standards anyone?

          • Killian

            Um I hate to tell you this but our elected officials ARE US citizens…

          • aes sidhe

            Um, I hate to tell you this, but they are members of the government that sent the letter and not as individual citizens acting on their own behalf. So, try that on someone else. They no more violated the Logan Act than Nancy Pelosi did when she visited with Syrian President Assad a few years ago. So, unless you plan on charging her and the other Democrats that have done this over the past thirty years, I’d suggest you keep your double standards to yourself.

          • Tommy

            Wrong. Pelosi went with State Dept. approval and input. The offending Senators are indeed citizens acting on their own behalf because they are not authorized constitutionally to engage in such behavior. They may represent citizens of their states (or districts in the case of Representatives), but not the United States without specific authorization from the exec.

  • Edward Huguenin

    Does it surprise anyone that John Boehner is in Congress illegally?

    House Speaker Boehner’s Election Illegal and Unconstitutional!

    According to the Ohio State Constitution, Article V, Section 8:

    Term limits for U.S. senators and representatives

    “No person shall hold the office of United States Senator from Ohio for a period longer that two successive terms of six years. No person shall hold the office of United States Representative from Ohio for a period longer than four successive terms of two years. Terms shall be considered successive unless separated by a period of four or more years. Only terms beginning on or after January 1, 1993 shall be considered in determining an individual’s eligibility to hold office.”

    Boehner has been “serving” since 1991. Boehner has served over two decades and a dozen terms consecutively in office.

    Imagine what our Nation would have looked like if the Ohio Secretary of State and done his job and kicked Boehner off the ballot.

    Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/house-speaker-boehners-election-illegal-and-unconstitutional/#vrLKGhvHIllFmo1X.99

    • eddiemag

      The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. No State law can supercede the US Constitution because the Constitution has no provision for term limits for FEDERAL office, other than for the President; thus, States can’t impose them. Only a Constitutional amendment can do so, and so far no one in either house nor either party has rushed to propose such an amendment…imagine that.

  • K. Goldberg

    Your headline says “Congressmen” but the news articles all say “47 GOP Senators.”

    • Einsteinbomb

      I agree it’s interesting they title it that way, but I believe they were referring to the senators generally as members of our Congress when they referred to them as ‘”Congressmen”‘. It’s sort of like how when we say representatives, but this could refer to both members of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate since they’re all representatives of their respected states.

    • Reid Dalton

      It’s not just the letter. It’s also the invitation to Netanyahu to speak before Congress. The offense extends to both Houses of Congress, and even members of both parties.

  • Dave P

    The Obama administration needs to arrest every congressman who signed this letter!

  • VD65

    I don’t agree that Obama is a tyrant at all. This is GOP propaganda. (I’m a Republican saying this by the way) What they did was nothing unexpected really but now I’m waiting for something to be done about Bush and Cheney as well as Boehner and anyone in the House or Senate that were instrumental in inviting Netanyahu to speak in the US and all 47 who signed the letter to Iran. They all should be jailed for breaking the law. Nothing that Obama has done has had any legal substance and why their so called lawsuit didn’t fly because no one would take the case, they would lose. I have read up on this extensively. Anyone who calls Obama a tyrant is clearly listening to BS and hasn’t fact checked a dang thing that gets said about him and a lot of others. I think calling him and his family monkeys which Republican politicians have done, constantly obstructing the processes of the government and negatively impacting citizens, military, seniors and disabled with threats has gone too far. All of these people need to be tried because there is “clear” law behind their illegal actions and something better happen and not get brushed under the rug. Netanyahu has insulted the country of the US and should never be allowed to set foot here and all aid should be cut off to Israel.

    • Evony Master

      An actual republican could not have written those first 2 sentences. You should change to independent or democrat. Obama IS a tyrant by any definition of the word. He issues royal decrees with no force of law, uses his power to punish political rivals illegally and refuses to negotiate with congress on anything.

      • Damien

        *SIGH* ANY definition of the word? How about the definition from Wikipedia?

        “A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls almost everything, and is considered a ruler of horrible and oppressive character.”

        Obama is not an absolute ruler. He is restrained by law and constitution. He has not usurped legitimate sovereignty. He does not control almost everything, and–despite what you might believe is the truest part of this definition–he is not a ruler of horrible and oppressive character.

        Obama is black. He’s a moderate–dare I say sometimes conservative–Democrat. He’s an intelligent and well-educated person. And he’s the President of the United States. This is enough for the Republicans to hate him FOREVER. You only wish he was an actual tyrant, so you’d have a bit of drama to fill your otherwise empty life with.

        • Meemers Garibay

          Oh brother! you cannot reason with people that are blinded by hate and deaf to the truth. Save your time and energy.

        • Sam Iam

          I agree. I think Obama is a brilliant political animal who is destroying the country. But, he is not a tyrant.

          • Damien

            I may not agree with you that Obama is destroying the country, but I respect that you at least acknowledge that he isn’t a tyrant. Truthfully, I think our political system, not a specific person, is destroying our country. When there is so much negative influence and money in politics, how the hell can these elected officials do anything for their constituents? They have to serve others before they serve us.

      • akcray

        Spend a few minutes reading the U.S. Constitution, THE LAW OF THE LAND, before you go saying what the President can or cannot do.

      • DarthDisney

        So please enlighten us. You are just part of the extremist right that is destroying the GOP.

        • Ted Green

          The gop needs to be destroyed. It’s turned into nothing more that a lot of rich, trash-talking morons who couldn’t even get up a good circle jerk.

      • bobbintb

        “He issues royal decrees with no force of law, uses his power to punish political rivals illegally and refuses to negotiate with congress on anything.”

        An executive order, which he has the power to use and has exercised far less than his predecessors since Reagan, is not a royal decree. And please enlightened us as to how he exactly illegally punished his political rivals? As for the “refuses to negotiate”, well we all know that’s just bullshit as Republicans REFUSE to give even a little to the point that they have purposefully shut down the government several times. He even compromised the hell out of the ACA until is was just a shell of what it was just to get it pass and Republicans are still whining that they didn’t get their way. Republicans have not only been obstructive but actively destructive and the President is the one that’s not negotiating? They are the ones that have demonstrated numerous times that they have no interest in negotiating but they want everything their way and they are willing to damage the country to get it. Republicans in office today are more interested in serving their party than the country.

      • Shawn Moan

        Your hatred is a mental disorder…..seek help!

      • Marsha Matthews

        Please provide empirical, irrefutable evidence that POTUS has used his powers to illegally punish political rivals; provide empirical, irrefutable evidence of the “royal decrees” issued by POTUS; and provide empirical, irrefutable evidence that POTUS ‘refuses” to negotiate with Congress on “anything.”

        • AND FOR DOING ALL THIS, WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME IN RETURN?>

          • Mike Mazurek

            How about another unsubstantiated degree or title. “His Royal Highness, Ron Polland,” perhaps. Or maybe, “His holiness, Ron Polland.” Probably Grand Poobah would be most proper, or at least most accurate.

      • dee bee 44

        Can you name the political rival that was punished or that just more bullshit conjured up without factual evidence as usual?

    • Reid Dalton

      I would say that Obama ordering the assassination of American citizens in foreign countries by drone missile, among other offenses, qualifies him as a tyrant.

      • moronthatlater

        Buuhhhh … would you shut up with this? Is this a macro on your laptop? Pick a new theme. This one is both tired and misplaced.

      • DarthDisney

        You mean Americans acting as foreign combatants?

      • macsimcon

        I’m a liberal Democrat, and I agree the President has acted as a tyrant. If President Obama wants to kill American citizens on foreign soil (even if they are enemy combatants), he needs oversight and approval (the due process afforded Americans under the Fifth Amendment) from another branch of the government.

        As the National Security Council is part of the Executive, the NSC doesn’t count.

        • dee bee 44

          What about congress acting as tyrants? They are the ones holding our country hostage they cut military funding and all they talk about is second amendment rights, 5th amendment and how the leader of the free world is not a natural citizen. All rubbish. The real reason this man is hated and called a tyrant is because he is a black man. Face it they do not behave as subordinants to the president of the united states and have violated the Logan act and committed treason. Just as Ronald Reagan and Oliver north had done. But we know what the real reason is you all have a issue dealing with being subordinants to our president based on race.

      • Ted Green

        I would say you have no idea what this discussion is about. Your little bit of blubbering puts you in the same category as those morons who signed the letter. The same goes for macsimcon. So it’s apparent that stupidity is not exclusive to the repub potty.

        • kevin777

          that’s not an argument. It’s name calling

        • Ros Papas aka nofearorfavor

          Why not correct Reid in a civilized way and also many others about who Obama really is. Can you blame the nation that they’re so confused? Don’t tell me Obama couldn’t have made a plan and long, long ago.

      • Shawn Moan

        Reid, your hate is ugly and counter productive! Look in the mirror and turn off Faux Noise…

      • Dave Mittner

        If citizenship were to offer protection against our enemies working abroad then you’re inviting our would-be enemies to become citizens, then leaving the country to wage war against us, knowing we’d be unable to fight them on equal terms.

        That’d be pretty stupid, don’t you think?

        The jurisdiction of the Constitution and our laws extend only to our borders and guarantee no protection to those who choose to leave the country–especially if they should choose to take up arms against us. An enemy is an enemy regardless of citizenship. If they’re within our borders then they’re protected by our laws. If they’re outside our borders, they’re not.

      • Marsha Matthews

        I beg to differ. Any American who commits a crime in a foreign country is subject to said country’s laws. In terms of any American citizen who disavows their citizenship by virtue of a committing to waging war against the U.S., is no longer a citizen of the U.S.

      • dee bee 44

        That is the biggest croc of bullshit in the world. What does he stand to gain by this? And unlike the rest of the republican congress and senate would know about this and not try to take him down? Or maybe they just let idiots have privilege to such information that would definitely do more harm and would appease them in their efforts to destroy the leader of the free world. I mean maybe you should tell your state senator this valuable information. Lol what an idiot but thats expected. You all let your hate for the president override your rationale and love for your country. In your efforts to destroy your president you would use the american people as collateral damage.

      • Mark Lodl

        You have proof of this that you aren’t sharing?

    • Ted Green

      Finally, the voice of reason from the repub party! You’re my new hero. Everything you say is true, I have spent considerable time looking at the Logan Act and there is no doubt that what those 47 people did was traitorous and illegal. And of course they should be tried. In United Stats vs. Curtis-Wright Export Corp., Justice Sutherland wrote that the President alone had the power to speak or listen as a represenatitive of this nation. There is more, but this makes it clear that the senate, without the authority of the President of the United States, cannot negociate or discuss America’s treaties or anything else in that vein. So There are 47 senators who need to be tried and if found guilty, removed from the senate. America does not need this kind of person(s).

      • Nicholas Mathis

        Ted – So what’s your opinion on Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria and negotiating with Assad? Read that again Pelosi VISITED Syria against the will of the State Department and President Bush.

        • Yehuda Landsman

          From what I have read, Pelosi visited Syria with the assent of the State Department, and the SD even had officials present in the meeting.

          Even if this wasn’t the case, the POTUS was not in the midst of sensitive negotiations with Syria when she had that meeting.

          If we truly wish to stand up to Iran, it is important that we show them a unified front. Debating issues here in the US is completely appropriate and within the spirit of separation of powers. Circumventing the POTUS, and going directly to a foreign government is not only illegal under the Logan Act, but stands to undermine our strength as a nation, and encourages Iran to ignore us, and pursue their course of action. The very thing these Senstors sought to avoid.

          IMHO the interests of the USA would be best served by dealing with these rogue Senators severely, and then encouraging honest and legal debate here at home.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Oh circumventing the POTUS is a big thing for you now. That’s exactly what Pelosi did. Also, this letter is not a violation of the Logan Act. The letter only stated than any agreement made by POTUS is not binding unless approved by the Senate and reminded everyone that come Jan 2017 there will be a different POTUS.

            But I wonder what did then Senator Biden have to say when Reagan was negotiating Nuclear Arms deals with Russia?

            “Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on
            its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and
            ultimately authorizing, such a commitment.”

            Also, Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution says, The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. You see the President is trying to bypass Congress yet again. He is not seeking the advice or consent of Congress on these negotiations as he is required.

            So you can have your opinions, but I’ll just go with what the Constitution says.

          • Tommy

            Well, Nicholas, you’re a bit confused. There are “agreements” and there are “treaties” – not the same thing at all. So, when Reagan (who violated the Logan Act by negotiating with Iran while running for president) had his guys negotiate the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, Biden was correct. Pelosi did not, as you claim, circumvent the exec in her visit to Syria as it was with the exec’s (through the State Dept., part of the exec) assent. On the other hand, it is not required for the exec to go to Congress for “agreements” of which many have been made by presidents and have remained valid without Congressional advice and consent. Since you’re such a Constitutional scholar and adherent, you’ll likely now withdraw your erring post.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Well, Tommy, the Reagan allegation is just that – there’s no proof. Its a conspiracy theory. Let’s not forget Ted Kennedy undermining Reagan and the negotiations with Russia – FYI Kennedy also sent a letter. How in the world can you say Biden was right then concerning Reagan negotiating with Russia about Nuclear Arms. If he was right then, then he should have ZERO problem with the letter. You liberals and your double standards. You have Reagan negotiating with Russia – Biden says a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own. Today, you have Obama negotiating with Iran – Biden’s opinion is exactly the opposite the Executive Branch can make a commitment on its own. He can’t be right in both cases.

          • Tommy

            First of all, I’m not what you call a “liberal”. The Iran gig was admitted to. Unsurprisingly, you seem to have missed the point. What Reagan was negotiating with the USSR was a TREATY (and that’s what Biden was talking about), openly and publicly stated as such. What is currently being negotiated among, if I recall, six countries regarding Iran’s nuclear program is an AGREEMENT. There is a Constitutional difference. Your local community college likely has a civics course. Kennedy’s letter, if indeed there was one (speaking of conspiracy theories!) was a secret until well after the fact when it was supposedly dug up in old KGB files. If it seems provable he wrote it, I’d say there’s at least sufficient prima facie evidence for charges; of course, he’s dead and unable to obtain due process…unlike the foolish young Senator Cotton – it would be interesting to see such a case tried.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Hey Tommy, they can call this an agreement all they want. But Obama is negotiating with Iran and those negotiating include relaxing and potentially lifting sanctions against Iran. Sanctions put in place by Congress. So he can not lift or relax sanction imposed by Congress. So he will have to go to Congress to get this approved.

            The Iran gig was not admitted. I did some internet searching last night and found Democrats have done this sort of thing several times. Even Obama is accused of telling Iran to not make a deal with Bush, because once he became President, he would give them a better deal. You have the Democrats writing the letter to Nicaragua. Ted Kennedy writing a letter to Russia. Kerry meeting with representatives of “both sides” of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970. Senator Sparkman and McGovern going to Cuba. 2002 you have McDermott, Bonior, and Thompson travel to Iraq to meet with Saddam. Also 2002, Rockefeller traveled to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to undermine Bush.

            The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes,Senators have a good argument that “the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement.”

          • Tommy

            Nicholas, as you continue to ignore facts in order to make your wishful beliefs mean something, I will simply say that “they” aren’t calling it anything but what it is. An agreement, not a treaty. A treaty is a kind of agreement, but an agreement is not necessarily a treaty. No treaty is being made at this time. You can pound away on that fish with your hammer all you like but you won’t make it into beef. While to Jack Goldsmith’s credit, despite the fact that he conflates “treaty” and “agreement” in a way that confuses you, he got the Bush administration legal opinion allowing torture withdrawn before he quit; on the other hand, he issued two legal opinions authorizing warrantless surveillance of Americans. It’s also to his credit that he quit that administration due to what he viewed as Bush’s un-Constitutional excesses. Quoting Goldsmith without noting his role as a former GWB legal advisor is pure dishonesty on your part. It’s not quite a lie; more like an attempted con job.
            Rather than correct your easily refuted examples (a couple of which I’ve already refuted), I’ll just say that “meeting” with someone is different than “negotiating”f…kind of like a treaty and an agreement might be different things. However, if you think these guys violated the Logan Act, please contact a DA and have charges brought.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Tommy, I am not ignoring anything. What do you suppose they did in those meetings Tommy, play checkers? No, they went to meet and negotiate and undermine the President in each instance. You are the one ignoring the fact that this agreement will have to be approved by Congress. How else will the sanctions be relaxed or lifted? I know Obama shreds our Constitution every chance he feels it is an inconvenience. These 47 have done nothing unprecedented, and in fact I was surprised at how unprecedented it was giving all the crying and moaning coming from the liberals.

            Also, it would seem to me that this letter did not even weaken Obama negotiating position. In fact, it probably strengthened it, since Iran knows this is its last chance to get its best deal. FYI best deal for Iran, worst deal for us.

          • Tommy

            Really?! You were there?! Wow!!! Even with Kerry in Paris in 1970, probably before you were born!!! At the age of, what, 28 with no role in gov’t, he was “negotiating” with “both sides” in Paris?! C’mon man. Well, enough of your nonsense. All the best.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            I never claimed I was there. Why were you there? Kerry admitted to negotiating with the Vietnamese delegations before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

            Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”

            However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR) was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong.

            So, you see yet again, Tommy you have no idea as what you are talking about. Go ahead pout and cry, and take your ball and go home.

          • Tommy

            “Talked with…” does not equal “negotiate.” You have a real problem with definitions…they just aren’t as pliable as you try to make them. And, please don’t try to school me on Viet Nam…you weren’t there. Rather than waste my time, I’ll just say you’re short of a full deck. Now, tuck your tail between your legs and crawl back in the kennel.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            That is the absolute lamest excuse I have ever heard. Please you can’t be this stupid. So you agree Kerry meets with Vietnamese but no negotiations were taking place. What do propose they were doing? Swapping cookie recipes? Only a complete fool would believe no negotiations took place. I get it you have to defend your democrats at all cost. Its the double standard. I’m right, you’re wrong. You see in this day and age, you can’t just make stuff up, because there is this tool called the internet where I can search for and access all kinds of information. So stop with the BS lies.

          • Tommy

            Lies? Hmm…. Yep, on the internet you can find anything that agrees with your opinion. What a groundbreaking discovery. You clearly have no ability to separate fact from opinion or to discern the differences between evidence, allegation, smear, and proof; nor do you seem to understand what negotiations are. You just have an axe to grind. It sometimes takes a spell to strip the mask off a troll, but there you are. So, my ignorant fellow, up yours.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            I have no axe to grind. In fact I have not even defended what the 47 GOP Senators did. All I did was point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats. They come out and say how unprecedented this letter is and how this has never been done in 200 years. When in truth two of the loudest screaming did the exact same thing in the past. There are also several other instances of congressman undermining the President. If it is wrong in one instance it is wrong in all of them. You have to be consistent. Something that infuriates me with both parties. But you liberals defend any Democrat regardless of the evidence and if they ever get cornered and come out and finally admit something – your gloriously claim “See they are taking responsibility for their actions!” Just be fair equal and consistent.

          • Tommy

            I suspect you had trouble with the “pick which one doesn’t belong” exercises in elementary school. As I said before, I’m not a liberal. I consider both the Democratic and Republican Parties to be morally bankrupt. Just to be factual with hopes that it’s not too much for you. We’re not going to agree. Why not just call it a day(or two)?

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Tommy, I just learned that the 47 Senators did not even actually send the letter to Iran. Tom Cotton simply posted it on his web page and social media accounts. But let me guess, Republicans Bad Commit Treason and Democrats Good Do Same Thing Sometimes Worse But you excuse the Democrats because well thats what liberal like you do.

          • Guest

            Nicholas Mathis, This will be the third time I’ve told you I’m not a liberal. You have issues with reading comprehension. Your guess? WRONG

          • Tommy

            Nicholas Mathis, This is the third time I’ve told you I’m not a liberal. Part of the reason you don’t know what you’re talking about is apparently you can’t read for meaning. This is why is clear you have an axe to grind: You don’t care what anyone actually says; instead you just repeat yourself. Your guess above? WRONG. Correct answer: Republicans bad. Democrats bad. I haven’t excused anyone of anything. I have pointed out, though, where your facts are wrong (or simply misinterpreted based on real events) or, even better, where you’ve time-traveled through history with your inter-temporal ESP and got yourself inside the minds of participants in events to the degree that you know what folks were thinking and doing even on another continent before you were born. Treason? Never said it, don’t believe it. Violation of the Logan Act? Probably. But, clearly, someone’s not legally guilty of running a red light unless they’re ticketed by proper authority. As the Dems and Reps are more in collusion than their current political circus suggests, it’s unlikely the oligarchs will charge one another. If you want them to, write your Congressperson. Now, please. Everyone knows what you “think” (for want of a better term). It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the same childish “did so-did not” BS.

          • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

            Tommy, Lt John “I shot myself three times” Kerry also came back and joined “The Weathermen” a Bill Ayres(?) group of punks and started calling real combat vets names and saying that we were committing hideous crimes. Granted there was some men that did do things, but not all of us did.

          • Tommy

            Well, you’re just repeating the same lies about Kerry that have been repeatedly refuted. Numerous people who actually served with Kerry have come forward since the Swift Boat liars to attest to his service. He certainly did not join Weatherman (it was NOT a Bill Ayres group, it was an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society after it was sabotaged by COINTELPRO). Instead, he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War like many, many of us did after surviving our government’s attempt to murder us and the Vietnamese for no good reason and was a national spokesperson for that organization before it, too, was co-opted by COINTELPRO. The fact of the “hideous crimes” were committed widely and often with great enthusiasm by US troops is well documented. No, not everyone; but, far too many. What?! We were supposed to not say anything about it?! Some of us actually tried to stop it, like the pilot of the chopper at My Lai who trained his pods on the ones murdering civilians and got them to stop.

          • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

            Tommy, you forgot to state that they were ordered by one of the Good ol’ Boys, a Col. an academy grad, flying around in a chopper and Lt Kelly, an ROTC grad, asked several time (was proven factual in his trial by several of his men) “Are you sure you want us to do that, Sir?”

            No I did not join that wacky organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) I later joined VVA (Vietnam Veterans of America). I am damn proud to have served.

          • Tommy

            Well, it was Lt. Calley not Kelly, actually, the only one who served time for the murders though likely far less culpable than Capt. Medina, the Col. you referred to, and the higher command, all of whom were war criminals. Now, do you want to hear about the bodies the SEALs used to lay out on the highway 40 clicks south of Saigon while they betted which ones would have their heads smashed by trucks. I didn’t know any wacky vets in VVAW; instead I knew quite thoughtful, serious young men (mostly) who were hurt and outraged at what our gov’t was doing there. You must have just read the press clippings. You’re welcome to your pride, brother.

          • Yadja

            Great job sock it to the uneducated perp.

          • CenterIndependent

            These sanctions were not put in place by congress, but the UN.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            There are sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.S. congress – look it up Google is your friend.

          • CenterIndependent

            are these negotiations currently happening in Iran, not about UN sanctions?
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0M82IS20150312

          • Nicholas Mathis

            there are sanctions imposed on Iran that were put in place by the U.S. Congress. These sanctions cannot be altered or lifted in any way without congress.

          • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

            Nick, I do believe that one of his idols also had some doing with the enemies. I’m talking about Lt John “Swiftboat” Kerry when he went to Paris to talk with the N. Veitnamese and the came back to the US and said those things about those of us that were fighting there.

          • Tommy

            Well, John, as the son of a career NCO who was a WWII vet and Viet Nam combat vet, and the brother of a man who was both a Viet Nam (as an army EM) and a Gulf I combat vet (as an AF pilot), and as a Viet Nam combat vet myself and as the nephew of two Korean War combat vets, many of us who were actually in-country eating C-rats and washing buddies’ brains off our boots while REMFs (especially those in the AF) were eating steak and fresh veggies CELEBRATED Kerry’s visit to Paris and his comments. And, we still do. I did my fighting in the north Delta. Where did you do your “fighting”, Tech Sgt.? And, pray tell, how is it you “retired” as only an E6?

          • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

            Tommy, I flew out of Bear Cat on an Army Helicopter Door gunner on a CH-47A “Chinook” Helicopter, I ate a lot of Cs and LRPs. We flew all over the bloody country delivering supplies and troops. I joined the Idaho Air National Guard when I got too old to be bounced around inside an ‘Iron Coffin” (a M-113 and an M-60 tank) and became a Cook. During my career I held down several MOS: Personnel Specialist (71H), Heavy Wire Construction Specialist (Pole lineman: 36C), Truck driver, Finance clerk, Supply clerk, Red-eye gunner (16P), Armored Recon, where I earned my sixes (19D30), Armored Crewman (19E) and finally as an USAF Cook. But, Brother I do it again but I wouldn’t be a bloody Cook, I’d be doin’ what a Scout does best “Leading the way!”

          • Tommy

            Well, John, let’s just let it go as you were a lifer and you have all the blind spots and prejudices of a life; and let’s just say I wasn’t a lifer and I have all the blind spots and prejudices of someone who wasn’t (but who was raised in a military family and who knows there’s plenty of bullshit in those bottles of Seagrams). We’re not going to agree. But, welcome home, John. And, we always called them Shithooks.

          • Yadja

            Excellent plus the Logan Act clearly states the president can not negotiate Treaties, which in effect this is what it is without the consent and the ADVICE of the Senate.

            O broke the law, O committed Treason and in fact he has been negotiating with the Ayatollah Khomeini since day one in office when we had Sanctions on them.

          • That Falin Woman

            No fact, eh? Just the usual right-wing KKK bullshit. Hate that black man in the White House so feel free to make up LIES about him. I could disprove your comment point by point, but you simply ain’t worth it.

            A brainwashed person is a pathetic person. Hopeless. With no redeeming qualities.

          • Yadja

            “A brainwashed person is a pathetic person. Hopeless. With no redeeming qualities” yes that is you and all your ilk. Great Introspection there.

            Color has nothing to do with why O is despised throughout the world, anyone who did the things he has done and is doing would get the same disgust from the American people. If anyone is Racist and Bigoted it is O and he has shown it with his intervening in civil matters like his professor friend, the Zimmerman case and Ferguson.

            obamalies.net/list-of-lies

            I did make one mistake in that comment I quoted from the Constitution not the Logan Act. But the facts remain O has and does and will continue to bypass our Congress and deny the Constitution. Until we take him out.

          • Yadja

            The Logan Act does not say “The President” has the authority to negotiate it says the Authority belongs to the United States and Congress is an arm of the US government with equal power if not more than the President.

            This brought to my attention by a friend.

          • Spyrit

            This is false, Neither the house nor the Senate have the power to negotiate on an international level. Individual states have no sovereignty, they can’t start a war, make peace, create armies. If you had read the High court ruling on the matter, you’d realize just how foolish you are. The President (the executive branch), solely represents the nation on an international level.

            The US Supreme Court found 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, that it is nonetheless given implicitly and by the fact that the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

            The Court distinguished the President’s authority in the area of domestic affairs from that of foreign affairs.

            The Court felt that the US must speak with a single authoritative voice in foreign affairs. There can’t be a bunch of second-guessing and a chorus of independent voices from Congress and the States.

            What those Senators did was a threat to national security.

          • Yadja

            “What those Senators did was a threat to national security.” Really so when Carter travels to the Middle East as a civilian and talks to our enemies he is a threat to security? When actors and actresses went to Cuba and visited Castro while we had Sanctions on them were they a threat to security?” When Kerry and Pelosi went to meet with our enemies while holding office and against the will of the president they were a threat to our security?

            The POTUS writing the Ayatollah Khomeini from day one in office was not a threat to our security? A country that says it wants Death to America and to our Alli Israel is not a Real Threat to the Security of America and Americans? One of the richest countries in the world who backs terrorism? Who when in this last war with Israel sent Hamas weapons and man power? A country that O is giving or wanting to give anything they want to and threatens the takeover of all our allies in the Middle East? A country that backed Assad who killed thousands? This country is not a threat to our Security?

            The Threat to American Security is Barack Hussein Obama. That is the threat and the poison that needs to be removed ASAP.

            So you think States don’t have Sovereignty? You don’t remember all the states who declared their Sovereignty in letters to O when he first came into office? You don’t know that Governors can call out their National Guard? You don’t know that every state has it’s own laws and law makers? You don’t understand that?

            Can the president make a Treaty without the consent and the advice of the Senate? No he can not. The Senate must be involved and they are to Ratify any agreement or Treaty or it is not binding. Executive Orders hold no long term agreement and therefore any country who only deals with the president will be surprised when a new president comes into office and wipes it clean. They are back to square one.

            Yes by law these representatives had every right to do what they did. It has been discussed in depth on the TV, Radio and on the net. The only reason O is not going for the throats of these men is because history shows that his party has done the same thing many, many times.

            O is not King. He is a Tyrant but he has not been crowned. He has overstepped his boundaries and should have been tried for Treason long ago. Thank the Almighty that the president of this country is never going to be the last voice or only voice that represents this country. Checks and balances are there for good reason.

          • Spyrit

            You didn’t read the ruling of the Supreme court did you? No states are not sovereign nations. You cannot have both houses negotiating foreign policy. None of those people interfered in foreign negotiations, which is clearly defined in this ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/299/304 , as a threat to national security, what you’re trying to do is validate unconstitutional actions by the 47 senators. Going off on a tangant about what’s going on in the Middle is is not relevant to the unconstitutional actions of 47 senators who fail to understand constitutional law.

          • Yadja

            The 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution dictate that the Federal governments powers are derived from the people and the states not, the other way around, and other than the duties specifically enumerated in the Constitution the federal government has no other authority.

            States are declaring their Sovereignty due to O’s over stepping his bounds.
            http://www.infowars.com/21-sates-claiming-sovereignty/

            If the 47 had violated anything O would be on it as would the Democrats. Since too many of their own have done the same they are keeping their mouths shut because they would open Pandora’s box and they would hang themselves.

            The only Treason that has been committed in this country is by O. Read the definition of Treason in the Constitution.
            O stopped Gitmo tribunals after the perps admitted to their crimes. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O changed the Rules of Engagement in favor of our enemies. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O has us reading Miranda Rights to those caught downrange killing us. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O was writing the Ayatollah Khomeini since first coming into office and we had Sanctions on them and considered them our enemy. Aid and comfort to our enemy.
            O compared Christians to those in ISIS at the National Prayer Breakfast. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O declared in front of the UN and world that those who insulted the prophet did not rule the world. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O visited Gaza when first coming into office and did not visit Israel. Aid and comfort to the enemy.
            O sent tax payers dollars to Gaza while Hamas was attacking Israel. Aid and comfort to the enemy.

            You want more? I can go on all day.

            You are dangerous, misinformed and as much a threat as O hope you enjoy the New America he will create for you unless we stop him.

            By the way I did not even cover all the infractions O has committed against our Constitution including breaking our Federal Immigration laws.

          • Spyrit

            Your ignorance of constitutional law never ceases to amaze me. You keep referencing people that got permission from the state department to act on the behalf of the United States, something these treasonous Senators didn’t do.
            What part of the term UNITED STATES do you fail to grasp?

            The only thing your irrelevant rants about the president only prove just how ignorant of the crime that has been committed and how ignorant you are of constitutional law. I wouldn’t advise speaking on the matter you’re clearly uninformed. By your logic the Supreme court ruling on exactly what lines of power between the branches are is untrue.

          • Yadja

            I would advise you nobody died and made you Supreme Leader and I will speak anytime I see fit. By the way there are many who are experts in the field who are letting it be known that they were not wrong and no the people you name, especially John Kerry going to the Sandinista was not authorized or advised by the sitting president at the time.

            I suggest before you suggest you take a look at yourself and realize this is being debated by bigger minds than yours and I am not on the wrong side.

            I am not a Constitutional lawyer and don’t claim to be but I do know what the Constitution says and I do listen to what experts say and your not one in my view.

          • Spyrit

            Did you still fail to read the Supreme court ruling? One you support division of the nation, 2 you support a violation of the constitution, which a high court ruling clearly states as such, 3 values upheld by the right, are Imperialist values, the very values our founding fathers threw the British out for.

            As far as the Logan act, personally it doesn’t go far enough in this case, what they did was interfere with not only this current president’s ability to negotiate (which said court ruling stated he is solely responsible for), but future president’s negotiations, you clearly don’t understand the big picture here, the ability to negotiate, by any president, on any foreign deals has been compromised, due to the fact of our incompetent legislation is bound to disrupt those negotiations, this is the threat to national security that ruling was talking about, what even our first president said, why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

            As it currently stands STATES ARE NOT SOVEREIGN NATIONS, they do not posses the power to negotiate deals with foreign nations, they can only ratify and fund those deals. Get it through your thick skull.

          • Yadja

            http://www.infowars.com/21-states-claiming-sovereignty/

            Why don’t you get in touch with all these states representatives and argue your point.

          • Spyrit

            I shouldn’t have to, the DoJ and The Obama Administration should be. It’s on them to pursue criminal charges. But makes me wonder about people like you who doesn’t value constitutional law.

          • Yadja

            I value the Constitution alright, I just don’t value O or Holder who don’t follow it, abuse it, misuse it, run around it and stomp on it.

            You take your grandiose self somewhere else I am not interested. Your one of them, the enemy in our midst.

            So you honestly believe that 21 states have it wrong? LOLO you really are something.

          • monika

            You do not value the Constitution or democracy, because if you would you would realize that Obama was voted to be president twice. Now, either change this in the next election or move to a country where democracy does not matter. Chain of command, mutiny, do this concepts mean anything to you?

          • Yadja

            Oh you of little minds. We are not a Democracy if we were you would not like it. Only true Democracy is in Lichtenstein and I have been there. The majority rules and Michael Jackson wanted a home there and the majority of the people said NO.

            We are a Republic. We voted to have a Constitution that would be the backbone of our government. O may have been voted in twice but what pray tell does that have to do with the fact he is a Traitor and has rewritten our laws which is not in the Executives Branches power? What about breaking our Federal Immigration laws do you not understand?

            I suggest you move because we are going to fight for our Republic and what I understand as an Officer in the military is that my Oath of Allegiance is to the Constitution and not the president, Google it.

            The reason? Because when in command we have to make quick decisions and if we do have a Commander in Chief who is wrong and his orders are against the Constitution we can stand against him.

            Mutiny my backside your an imbecile and you are responsible for this Plague called O.

            Take it down the road sister.

          • 81lowrider

            It’s the office of President, not the individual to whom you owe your loyalty. There’s a reason we don’t let the military control our politics and you are a perfect example of why. Here’s a little reading for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military

          • weslen1

            You’re wasting your time. The guy either is lying about having been in the military or got thrown out. The Military Code Of Conduct states, very clearly, that speaking ill of the President is a court martial offense, and the punishment ranges all the way from dishonorable discharge to death.

          • johnmcc

            Good god man…. READ THE CONSTITUTION before you post bullcrap like this…. the President is NOT the sole arbiter of negotiations with foreign nations… in fact…. according to the Constitution, which you never cite, he must ALWAYS seek the advice of the Senate prior to any start of negotiations AND then get their PERMISSION to start…. without that… it is the President who is breaking the law.

          • Spyrit

            No the Executive branch doesn’t need permission from Congress to negotiate deals on an international level, only he alone can do this without interference from the Senate or Congress, didn’t you read the high court ruling? By your logic all members of the house and the senate, which are state representatives (which are not sovereign nations), only the Senate can ratify treaties, only the president can negotiate them, on his own, he doesn’t need permission to represent the nation, he IS the face of the nation (the sole organ) on an international level.

          • johnmcc

            I cite the Consitution, you cite criminals in government trying desparately to circumvent the Constitution… It is people like you who are why we need to have a full on bloody civil war part two…. to get rid of scum like you.

          • Spyrit

            Are you really that ignorant? Neither the house nor the Senate is to participate in international negotiations. Even George Washington pointed this out, are you actually defying our founding father’s intentions? The states are not nations, they have no authority or power to interfere in international affairs, the Constitution delegates this power to the Executive branch only, get it stupid?

          • johnmcc

            No you moron… the Senate is to give the president permission to hold treaty negotiations…. the president, ONCE he has permission and has gotten guidance on the negotiation terms FROM THE SENATE… ONLY then can he begin negotiations…. the Constitution is quite clear on this and only a scumbag or criminal whose intent is to circumvent the Constitution would cite anything and anyone EXCEPT the Constitution.

          • Spyrit

            Not when it comes to international negotiations. That is purely executive branch, learn the difference.

          • monika

            Again, who is paying for Boehner’s upcoming trip to Israel. Can someone please tell me if we now have two separate governments, with each doing their own “thing.”

          • monika

            You can make the same argument for Boehner! He is not King either. Where does this put us? If neither are king, is one slightly more than a king? In our system of balance of power, where is the answer?

          • Yadja

            No you cannot. We have checks and balances in the Constitution for a reason. We were given the Second Amendment right and told by our Founding Fathers to use it when a Tyrant appears and we need to get our country right again.

            No O is not more of a King. We are not a Monarchy even though there were those even when our fight for freedom was at hand who preferred it, longed for it but we won out against them just as we will win out against O today.

            The Congress has the Power of the Purse to stop him and they will. The president is not stronger or more powerful than Congress and it is a darn good thing.

          • Monika

            I can see your point, but (and there always seems to be one of those), how do you answer those who say Boehner has decided to be a king. I asked my granddaughter (10) can you name the three branches of government and why are there three? she rightly answered (rolling of her eyes), because, grandma, we need balance in power. So, I said, what happens then when one branch gets to powerful?. She was quiet for only a moment and said “nothing!!!’ I did not know what to say!!!!

          • Yadja

            Is it not odd that no president in our history has had problems understanding his boundaries until O. Then again today we hear him say he will use Executive Orders to get his agenda across by hook or crook. What kind of statement is that from a president? What kind of pompous and arrogant man does this?

            We are dealing with a dangerous and bad man and the world understands it when will the rest of the country.

            In 2008 John Podesta said on the Chris Wallace show, O intended to bypass Congress every chance he got, at least he was honest and nobody was listening.

            Sadly when O takes the power bad things happen.

          • cargosquid

            Did you forget Wilson and FDR?

            Oh…look…BOTH progressives!

          • Yadja

            No but lookie here they were not anywhere near O.

            Maybe if they would have been president in this time they would be but history shows they were little league compared to this demon.

          • cargosquid

            Take a closer look at Wilson. His policies inspired Musollini and Hitler. He imprisoned people. He was the closet thing we’ve had to a actual fascist for President. Obama is horrible…but, so far…he’s a wannabe. An empty chair. He’s being run by Valerie Jarret.

          • Yadja

            Will do. Have read so much history I don’t remember at times.

            Still contend O worst.

          • weslen1

            EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS USED EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Don’t know where you and your KKK buddies went to school, but it must have been a doozie, because you all have the same delusion disorders. For the record, even though the Constitution NOWHERE SAYS that a BLACK MAN can never be a legitimate president, you all seem to have seen it in one of your fantasies, or nightmares, and you obviously have NEVER READ the U.S. Constitution. I suggest you get a tutor, because it will take a brain to explain it. Regardless, Obama WAS LEGALLY ELECTED TWICE, and HAS all the SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES as EVERY WHITE President who came before him. Now BRACE YOURSELF!!!!! There WILL BE OTHER BLACK PRESIDENTS TO COME, and BRACE FOR IT, one day it will be a MEXICAN AMERICAN, or AMERICAN INDIAN. You shivering yet?

          • Spyrit

            18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
            If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

          • Yadja

            Oh shove it. Side ways.

            Come get me you nit.

          • Spyrit

            Are little bit of a fanatic aren’t you, 47 broke the law, they need to resign their post and face charges.

          • Yadja

            A little bit of a hypocrite aren’t you? If they resign then the following have to also.

            2007 Pelosi was accused of violating the Act when she traveled to Syria and met with Assad.

            Kerry went to the Sandinista.

            Jesse Jackson needs to be picked-up for his 1984 visits to unsavory countries and leaders.

            Many more so guess you won’t be pushing for that will you?

          • Spyrit

            18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
            Treason would be a tough court case, even though the 47 sided with the hardliners of Iran, maybe could prove treason, however since Tom Cotton was lobbied by Isreal and paid 900k for his campaign, as well as be lobbied by military industrial complex, would it also validate treason as defined by the Constitution, what exactly is the precedence to incite war anyways?

            What is the law of foreign nations meddling in domestic affairs and those who conspire with them?

          • Yadja

            You do know O interfered with Israeli elections and it was all over their news?

            You do know that according to our Constitution the definition of Treason giving aid and comfort to the enemy and you do realize O has done just that do you not?

            Like I said guess you guys won’t be pushing for that.

          • Spyrit

            So you think it’s ok that our legislative body can be bought by foreign countries to meddle in our affairs, is that what your saying?

          • Yadja

            Do you think it was OK for O to interfere in Israel because he wants his way?

            Don’t question me when you don’t seem to understand that O has been in the pocket of Russia and was caught saying so on an open mic along with the Radicals in the ME.

            Who do you think writes policy for the WH? George Soros. George Soros buys policy and is one of O’s handlers.

          • Spyrit

            None of them interfered with negotiations and hindered not only this presidents ability to negotiate, but future presidents as well.

          • Yadja

            Your so full of it. What do you think they did when they went back to Congress?

            Your dense buddy.

            We just had the King of Jordan talk to our Armed Forces Committee did he interfere with the Iran Deal?

            We don’t have a president, we have a would be king who bypasses Congress and spits in the eyes of the American people and steps on our Constitution. He is nothing more than a PIA of America and the world.

          • 81lowrider

            Carter is a civilian as was Jesse Jackson. “unsavory countries” you’re kidding right?

          • Jed

            They most emphatically did not break the law. Make your case or stand down.

          • Spyrit

            Yes they did break the law. It would seem you fail to understand the difference between ratify and negotiate, only the president can negotiate and neither the Senate nor congress can interfere in that negotiation.

          • Jed

            Prove it! You offer no proof because no law was broken!

            Have you read the letter? It says nothing that should not be common knowledge to every American, but then I doubt you’ve read the Constitution either.

            You’ve got nothing — since you don’t understand what “make your case or stand down” means, I’ll try it this way: put up or shut up!

          • Spyrit

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/tom-cotton-iran_n_6831328.html He absolutely intended to interfere with negotiations and I’ve put up plenty of times you remain in a state of denial. No matter how much you deny the fact are quite clear they broke the law.

          • Jed

            I just love how you massively edited that comment after the fact. Before you made the addition, it said only: “Yes they did break the law.”

            You’re a two-bit fraud and a tragic joke.

          • Spyrit

            You’re a moron, this is why elected officials are so stupid. How many times do I have to post this ruling? https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/299/304

            Let me spell it out to you, you can read right?

            Cf. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., supra, p. 295. [p319]

            Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

            The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

          • Jed

            The case you cited is not applicable. The letter in question was simply informative and educational with regard to the nature of our system of government. In no way did it act or strive to act as an instrument of negotiation. You may find it to be in bad form or in poor taste, but that does not make it criminal.

            Here’s the text. As I said before, this should be common knowledge among all Americans. It would not reasonably be considered as such to foreign governments.

            An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

            It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

            First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

            Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well
            beyond then—perhaps decades.

            What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

            We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual
            understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

            Sincerely,

            Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR [et al]

          • Spyrit

            It is sedition, the ruling stated that neither Congress not the Senate can interfere in international negotiations, when the Senators themselves declared it was an act of sabotage on their part, that is hindering international negotiations, which the high court ruling clearly defines that legislation can’t do.

            They have no power to do so. This is in violation of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 with the intent to lead to this violation https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 . There is no doubt that Tom Cotton who was funded by Israeli interests as well as the military industrial complex to incite war.

            The Logan act was definitely violated, Treason as defined by the constitution would be tough to prove. Sedition and Insurrection most definitely.

            If nothing else should come from this, it should be the repeal of Citizen’s United. What this indecent prove, is that any country can pay our legislation to support their interests. Including dangerous precedence that violate constitutional law.

          • infadelicious

            Thanks for posting this Jed…

          • infadelicious

            Thanks for posting this Jed…

          • Spyrit

            They had no authority to write that letter to begin with, period, They interfered in international negotiations, do you understand what INTERNATIONAL even means?

          • Paul

            I fail to see how this citation is relevant.

          • 81lowrider

            Be very careful with that “needs to be removed ASAP” .

          • Yadja

            I don’t think so buster after this man.

          • Sandra Crosby

            Might I suggest you get a mirror to discover what represents the greatest threat to the United States. The US has been inserting itself into matters in the Middle East since WWII. (Mostly CIA covert actions WHILE the US taxpayers lost as the economy collapsed, since a little money washing thru Israel was going on — kind of like you hiding behind a “guest” status).

          • weslen1

            Israel is NOT an ALLY. It is a LEECH, sucking up $4 BILLION American dollars each year and using it to blow away CHILDREN and their parents, in order to STEAL more land. OLD Israeli MEN spit on school age CHILDREN, just because they don’t like the clothes they wear, AND Netanyahu is a slime, no better than HITLER.

          • johnmcc

            Wow, did you even BOTHER to read the Constituiton? The President must seek advice AND permission from the Senate BEFORE ever talking to any country or its leaders…. he does not have the authority to do this by himself. The President is the one who violated the law by acting like the authoritarian he is and not asking for permission to talk with the Iranians.

          • Spyrit

            Not when it comes to international negotiations, this is not about US sanctions.

          • johnmcc

            Once again, you leftists have consistently shown your contempt for the Constitution along with your complete ignorance of our founding document.

            First, the Senate, and Senators have every right to state openly what the Constitution says is their right. Second, it was Obama, and Bush before him, who have broken the law… not the Senate.

            Allow me to elucidate; The Constitution requires the President to not only seek the guidance of the Senate BEFORE any possible negotiations, he must get permission from the Senate to talk with the leaders of other countries, and finally, he must get the approval of a minimum of 2/3 of the Senators considered present by the opening roll call (usually 67) to have the treaty ratified. This is because we are a Republic with three equal branches of government with very distinct roles, and all checking the other’s power dividing it equally. The Senators cannot directly negotiate treaties with foreign dignitaries, but then, neither can the President without the Senate’s permission… we have this form of government so that we don’t have a Dictatorship. Seems like you want a Dictatorship Spyrit.

            The Constitution is clear on this matter no matter how hard criminals in government have made multiple excuses for its violation or justified their actions by claiming their Constitutionality in spite of the opposite being true.

            “The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….”

            What does this mean? Well, if words are to mean anything and hold people to a designed purpose, this means that, while it is the President who ultimately does our treaty negotiations, there are a few preconditions that MUST be met.
            Treaty negotiations aka international agreements are only done after the Senate has first been consulted for their Advice because the word Advice (capitalized in the Constitution for emphasis of its importance) means: “guidance or recommendations concerning prudent future action, typically given by someone regarded as knowledgeable or authoritative.” Did you catch that? Advice means “Guidance or recommendations concerning prudent FUTURE action…” That’s right, the President must first consult the Senate on his proposed actions prior to taking them.

            Next, what is the definition of Consent? Consent is precisely defined as; “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.” So this first part of the Treaty clause is very clear that the President needs to seek the guidance of the Senate for any and all treaty negotiations and THEN must get their permission to proceed with the Negotiation. Failure to do so is a violation of the Constitution or in other words, is breaking the law.

            Any time the President has started negotiations with other world leaders on behalf of the United States without the explicit guidance and permission of the Senate, he has violated the Constitution. He has overtly broken the highest law of the land, and yet here you are, people citing anything BUT the Constitution to justify your calls for these perfectly legitimate Senate actions to be considered criminal…These Senators are anything BUT criminal… they are starting to actually DO THEIR JOB!!

          • Spyrit

            You fail to realize the difference between national i.e. US and Iran only and international P5+1 countries, what you’re suggesting is that the US not be involved in regards to international policy deals.

            As was stated in the Supreme court ruling ( which was stated by a Senate committee on foreign relations)

            Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

            The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

            U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p 24

            In case your reading comprehension fails you I’ll repeat this yet again.

            He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

            You see this? That is a supreme court ruling. He was interfered with during NEGOTIATIONS. reading is fundamental I suggest you learn how to.

          • johnmcc

            Wow, you really are retarded. Do you also live off subsidies for mentally handicapped individuals from the government? You obviously can’t understand definitions when they are given to you…. it does not matter if the President is negotiating with 1 or 100 countries at the same time… ANY NEGOTIATION WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES IS A TREATY NEGOTIATION!!! HE MUST GET PERMISSION!!!! HE IS NOT A DICTATOR!! No matter how much you want him to be.

          • Spyrit

            No he doesn’t need permission to negotiate international deals with the Senate. It’s part of his duty as president, what part of that court ruling did you fail to understand? Which part of the Senate committee on foreign affairs statements on presidential constitutional duties is hard for you to comprehend, are you actually attempting to debate the Supreme courts ruling on this? You know the Supreme court who’s job it is to interpret constitutional law. I seriously hope you’re trolling because no one is that ignorant.

          • johnmcc

            First of all, it was only the Courts job once they appointed themselves… however according to the Constitution, it is NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB! You, like all Statists, want nothing more than to circumvent the Constitution in any way you can… and those of us who know better are stuck waiting until you screw up so bad, you force this country off the cliff… at which point… we get to shove you off the cliff with it… until then, you can thank your god that it hasn’t happened yet. Your purposeful distortion of our Constitution shows you to be the treasonous bastard that you are…. see you on the field of battle once this all goes to shit.

          • Spyrit

            You’re very ignorant, really stop. The Senate committee on foreign relations in 1806 defined the Presidents duty to represent the nation as a whole on foreign negotiations. Second by your idiotic logic, if the President had not gone, international negotiation still would of taken place and WE WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT as law, without Senate approval on anything, as I stated this was not a domestic affair, this has to do with international law, where both houses are powerless to intervene.

            Now you moron does he go and represent our interest and set terms in deal to insure our security, or refuse to go and Let China, Russia, France, UK and Germany determine those terms, either way we still have to follow international law.

          • Monika Perez

            I believe Boehner’s upcoming trip to Israel is another act of treason. Boehner, as speaker of the house does not have the authority to visit this foreign government without the approval of the executive branch. Boehner’s “spokesman declined to offer other details on the upcoming trip, including whether it was an official congressional trip or sponsored by a private group (direct quote).” I would like to know who pays for this misguided trip (better not be my taxes). It is not a fact finding mission or any other officially sanctioned trip. http://www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=41

          • ~ me ~

            The Logan Act makes no reference to the establishment of official U.S. Foreign policy. That is done elsewhere in our current legislation. P.O.T.U.S is embeaued with many some exclusive rights representing the United States as a whole by virtue of his position. Whatever the current U.S. Official Policy at the current time, whether private citizen member of congress, negotiating and speaking on behalf of the U.S. in a manner that conflicts with the current policy, is a violation of the Logan Act.
            If you have issues / questions regarding P.O.T.U.S negotiating and producing treaties, you might want to ask why he’s sent for just such purposes, to so many countries to meet with so many heads of state… Photo ops?

          • TexasVetgal

            Funny Democrats started the KKK, had a Senator Robert Byrd sitting 40 years on the Democratic bench, while being a Grand Cyclops of the KKK. But Republicans are the racists… You liberals sure like to lie your way into being right all the time.

            ObozO should be busting rocks for a long time, for treason commited against this Country.

          • tarrega

            Is that scripted?

          • That Falin Woman

            How very noble of you! (Snark.)

            You believe these 47 treasonous and seditious senators are the same as Pelosi or Kerry?

            You truly are a brainwashed right-wing nut, who hates Obama so much, you’re willing to destroy our nation to prevent his being successful at anything. Congrats! You are scum of the earth. Be proud.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Actually, I believe Pelosi and Kerry to be much worse. FYI, you would be the brainwashed person in this scenario. I simply pointed several instances of Democrats undermining other Presidents in similar situations. Some cases the Democrats wrote letters and in other cases, like Kerry, he actually went and negotiated with the Vietnamese while we were at war. How can you not treat each of those instances the same, actually Kerry was worse since he actually meet and negotiated and did not just write a letter? Oh I know, some were committed by Democrats and some by Republicans. Of course, in your world Democrats do not wrong. Typical double standard of a typical brainwashed liberal.

            I really enjoy how you expose your hatred in your petty name calling. Stay Classy!

          • That Falin Woman

            How is it that Republicans bring up something a Democrat did in the past (though it’s “apples and oranges”) to justify a blatant act of treason?

            Every forum I’ve seen so far has Republican apologists saying, “Well, Pelosi did it!” — without realizing Pelosi did it the RIGHT way. Her act was NOT treasonous.

            It was perfectly legal.

          • TexasVetgal

            Its called demagoguery… And lieing between their teeth. They are guilty of interference… So what.
            Follow the Constitution and you wont have all this.

            America is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Not a Thugocracy.

        • ANNG14

          Please advise what were Bush’s accomplishments? I couldn’t think of any.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Anng14 – I think you are on the wrong article, we are not discussing Bush’s accomplishments. Unless, this is your way of admitting you are wrong and trying to get the conversation to move to another topic.

          • ANNG14

            You brought up Bush. I think you are deflecting because you can’t answer the question. Can you?

          • Nicholas Mathis

            I said that Nancy Pelosi meet with Assad against the wishes of GWB. You know that is actually related to the topic of the article. At no time has anyone claimed GWB accomplished anything. But you Obama supporters, when you have nothing of substance to say, you all scream – look at GWB!!

            But okay I play along. So do you thing his domestic surveillance program was a success? or will you go back to screaming warrantless wire tapping. FYI Obama was going to get rid of this program but greatly expanded it. (One of his many lies along the campaign trail.) What about Bush’s enhanced interrogation techniques of known terrorist? Oh I know you liberals hate that, and accuse Bush of war crimes, but you excuse the deaths of at least 168 Palestinian children killed in Obama’s drone strikes. FYI Bush had bipartisan congressional authority, whereas Obama does not. What about the chants, Racist, Unjust, Illegal War and Bus is bombing brown people – and Bush again had bipartisan congressional approval and Obama does not. Only congress can declare war, but I guess it is okay for Obama to bomb brown people.

          • Marcos

            I answered your question

          • ANNG14

            Where?

          • Marcos

            Look and ye shall find!

          • The only President in history to start — and lose — 2 (two) wars against far weaker, smaller and poorer sovereign nations.

            The President who ignored warning and allowed the Worst Terrorist Attack upon U$ soil to happen.

            The President who via 8 years of criminal incompetency caused the 2nd Great Republican Economic Depression.

            The President who authorized the commission of War Crimes and Torture against innocent civilians worldwide.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Okay, I don’t believe we have lost any wars, and a President cannot declare war. That can only be done by Congress. ISIS was formed because the current President Obama pulled out of Iraq and it left a vacuum, which was filled by ISIS. Also, all Bush went before the UN and received bipartisan approval for all military action. Obama has not done this yet.

            Wow so you blame 9/11 completely on GWB. You do realize GWB had just been sworn in that same year. I also believe is was Bill Clinton who passed on taking Bin Laden out. That attack, was caused in part by our lack of border security lack of enforcement of immigration laws. It was not the fault of GWB. The wars you mention were a response to this attack.

            8 years of criminal incompetency? What law did he break? You forget the country entered a recession Feb 2001, 11 days after GWB was sworn in. Remember the DOTCOM bubble bursting. The 9/11 tragedy happened which hurt our economy even more. But why don’t you mention Clinton signing the Community Reinvestment Act or maybe mention Barney Frank and the Democrats preventing the reform of Fannie and Freddie.

            The President who authorized torture against innocent civilians. Name one innocent civilian that was tortured? They were all known terrorist. But what about Obama and his drone strikes – which have not been authorized by Congress. Those drone strikes have killed at least 168 innocent Palestinian children.

          • Nicholas Mathis “Okay, I don’t believe we have lost any wars”

            ROTFLMAO !!

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/frontline-iraq_n_5626762.html

            In its new documentary ‘Losing Iraq,’ PBS Frontline investigates the country’s descent into its current crisis, including the role of the United States and embattled Iraqi leader Nuri al-Maliki. The film details the many missed opportunities to address Maliki’s increasingly sectarian policies and the growing Sunni-Shia divide.

            “Boss we got to have a change here,” Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq at the time, said to President Bush about Maliki in 2007. Bush insisted the U.S. would make it work with the Iraqi leader.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            I get it liberals hate Republicans and everything else they disagree with. You could care less about how many lives of Armed forces are lost so long as Republicans fail. You never stand up for our troops and always degrade them and put them down any chance given.

            But the War in Afganistan is still ongoing, so I’m not sure how you can claim the U.S. lost that war. The War in Iraq, well the goal was to remove Saddam from power. I believe he is dead. As for the state of Iraq today, some idiot named Obama, withdrew all troops and support from Iraq and while back despite the warnings. That allowed ISIS to fill the void, Obama left. Now we are sending more troops and more support back to Iraq, but our troops are not wearing boots or standing on the ground according to Obama.

            So no I do not believe we have lost those 2 wars.

          • Typical Repuglycan, blames others for his own mistakes, sends U$ troops off to die meaningless deaths in totally unnecessary and illegal attacks, invasions and occupations of sovereign nations.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Again, typical liberal, your name Donkey suites you. You see Bush did not declare war on anyone by himself. He went before the UN and he went before our congress to seek authorization. You seem to forget all of your liberal friends voting for the war in Iraq. You can say what you want about Bush and I personaaly don’t think he was a very good President but he did seem to at least follow the constitution which is way more than you can say for Obama .

          • Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Again, no surprise you have a bunch of liberal sources claiming the war was illegal. Umm no, there were several UN Resolutions and our Congress authorized it with bipartisan support. If it was illegal then why was no one charged? Under what authorization is Obama conducting these drone strikes? There are no UN resolutions and congress certainly hasn’t authorized anything. Obama let’s not forget is responsible for the deaths of at least 168 Palesteinian children and he is also responsible for droning an American citizen and killing 3 other American citizens that were collateral damage. He’s quite the patriot huh.

          • If Obama is acting illegally, then why was no one charged?

            LOL!

            The Criminal Bu$h Regime Convicted of War Crimes

            Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo all found guilty.

            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/

          • Nicholas Mathis

            The KLWCC is not recognized by any Malaysian Court. This was not a court of law. It’s a kangaroo court at best. It has no judicial authority, no enforcement. You’re even further out there than I thought. What size tin foil hat do you wear?

          • UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes, Says Ex-U.S. Terror Czar

            Former U.S. terror czar Richard Clarke, who resigned in 2003, dropped two bombshell statements about the Bush administration he served during a recent TV interview. First, he said, former President George W. Bush and then-Vice President Dick Cheney probably perpetrated what amounts to “war crimes” surrounding the unconstitutional attack on Iraq.

            Clarke was fairly blunt when asked whether he thought war-crimes charges should be brought against Bush, Cheney, and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes,” the former U.S. terrorism czar for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said in recent TV interview.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            It was not an unconstitutional attack. Again, Bipartisan Congressional Support for the attack and several UN Resolutions. Also, its someone’s opinion and I really like how he protects himself and uses the word probably – meaning he really does not know but he thinks he does. Your hatred for GWB goes deep. You must have a ten gallon Tin Foil hat.

          • Figures that a conservatard like you wouldn’t comprehend the legal significance of the word “probably”.

            Get back to us when you obtain your G.E.D.

          • Only the most daft brain-dead conservatard would claim that Pentagon War Hawk Richard Perle is a liberal.

            LOL!

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Richard Perle? I did not say he was a liberal. Reading comprehension, learn it!! But Richard Perle is not exactly a credible person. Just because Richard Perle says something does not make it so.

            Donkey, you are an Obama Zombie, and you hate GWB. That’s Fine.

            Does not change the fact that what these 47 Senators did was not illegal or treason. Also, it’s not as bad as what some Democrats have done in the past. So if you want to condemn these 47, then you must also condemn Kerry, Biden, Pelosi and the rest. The examples are above.

            Also, I have always wondered. Does the Tin Foil hat help with TV reception in anyway? Just curious.

          • Just because you disagree with Pentagon War Hawk Richard Perle’s candid admission that the Iraq Invasion was in fact ILLEGAL doesn’t negate that uncomfortable fact.

            Fact is, Bu$h Lied, and 1000s of hapless US Troops died meaningless deaths in an illegal invasion and occupation of the far smaller, weaker and poorer sovereign nation of Iraq, which has predictably descended into an ungovernable quagmire far worse than any threat Saddam ever posed.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Donkey you are an idiot. I love how all the liberals (even then ones that voted to go to war) all claim Bush lied crap. It was faulty intellegence, and everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. Now whoever created the false documents would be the liar. Instead we had Kerry who voted to send them to war and called the troops murderers. Great support.

            Now you have to prove someone is guilty and that they actually broke the law to convict them. The opinions of a few liberals and one Richard Perle who has questionable credibility. But yeah well just say since I disagree it must be true. Be careful with Tin Foil hat, it might cut you up when you try removing your head from your backside.

          • Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

            http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Does your count include all the false statements made by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats who voted to invade Iraq. You are an idiot. All of the “so-called” false statements was based on faulty intelligence. You act as if Iraq was allowing regular inspections of all of its facilities to determine these things. It was bad intel, from who, well we don’t know. But calling people liars because they repeat intel that everyone (Democrats and Republicans) believed to be accurate is disingenuous at best. And also just goes to show you hate GWB and you completely ignore the things Obama does. You are a partisan hack. I am tired of wasting my time with you, since you are incapable of intelligent thought.

          • U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of “critical thinking” in Iraq

            http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Did you actually even read this article or just the headline. Hans Blix, admitted in the article then even he believed Iraq had WMDs. Even though he did 3 inspections that turned up ZERO WMDs. Again, it seems as if there was faulty information. Your problem is you only want to blame Bush and the Republicans and there were many Democrats involved that voted for the Iraq War that you do not want to hold responsible simply because they are democrats.

          • Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal
            The UN’s former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is his “firm view” that the Iraq war was illegal.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Well General Lord Goldsmith said the war was lawful. SO THERE!!

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Again, even Hans Blix admitted he believed Saddam had WMDs even after his inspections. Then Iraq stop allowing the inspections. Again he used the word might. You see if Hans had been wrong and Iraq had a Nuclear Weapon or was enriching uranium then the results could have catastrophic for the rest of the world. Saddam chose not to cooperate with the UN and the inspections. He also had a history of murdering his own people with chemical WMDs. I get your the genius, tin foil hat wearing, GWB hating idiot that still lives in his mother’s basement.

          • December 17, 1999 – Security Council Resolution 1284 replaces UNSCOM with UNMOVIC.

            January 29, 2002 – U.S. President George W. Bush labels Iraq part of an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union speech.

            September 16, 2002 – Iraq agrees unconditionally to the return of inspectors.

            September 19, 2002 – Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivers a letter to the United Nations from Saddam Hussein stating that Iraq has no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.

            October 1, 2002 – The United Nations and Iraq agree on terms they say are consistent with existing U.N. resolutions. The United States threatens to veto unless a U.S. resolution is approved that would allow military action for non-compliance by Iraq.

            November 8, 2002 – The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1441.

            November 13, 2002 – Iraq delivers a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, accepting the terms set forth in resolution 1441.

            November 27, 2002 – Inspections resume in Iraq.

            December 7, 2002 – Iraq submits a 12,000 page report on its WMD programs.

            January 16, 2003 – Inspectors discover 12 chemical warheads, 11 of them empty, at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area.

            January 20, 2003 – After two days of negotiation, Hans Blix, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Iraqi officials reach an agreement about Iraqi cooperation and concessions regarding the inspections.

            February 5, 2003 – Secretary of State Colin Powell briefs the U.N. Security Council on inspections. He presents false evidence that the United States says proves Iraq has misled inspectors and hid proscribed weapons and equipment.

            February 14, 2003 – Blix and ElBaradei brief the U.N. Security Council. Blix reports that the inspectors have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

            February 27, 2003 – Iraq agrees to destroy the country’s al Samoud II missile stock. However, the letter doesn’t specify a date that the missile destruction will begin.

            March 18, 2003 – Inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

            March 20, 2003 – (local time) U.S. and coalition forces begin military action against Iraq.

            October 2, 2003 – David Kay, who heads the U.S. search, reports to intelligence committees for both the House and Senate that the Iraq Survey Group has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

          • Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/

          • US under Bu$h / Cheney Criminal Regime FABRICATED FALSE Evidence for an Illegal War

            https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/26/planting-false-evidence-on-iran/

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Wow, you find all the TIN FOIL hat web sites I see. Crawl back into your mother’s basement until its time for dinner.

          • U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

            UNITED NATIONS 3.2.2004 — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

            The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year’s U.S-led invasion.

            The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            That report came out a little late and is technically wrong. Since we did actually find WMDs in Iraq.

            http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

          • January 28, 2004 – After retiring earlier in the month, David Kay tells the Senate Armed Services Committee that there should be an independent investigation into the misleading and fabricated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability.

            February 6, 2004 – President George W. Bush names a seven-member commission to investigate the nation’s intelligence operations, specifically to study the information about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction.

            October 6, 2004 – The final Iraq Survey Group report is released. The report concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

            December 2005 – U.S. inspectors end their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

            March 31, 2005 – The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” in its assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Donkey – This is my last response to you. There were WMDs found in Iraq. It was not the WMDs that everyone was looking for, but there were WMDs in Iraq.

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

            I will not respond or read anything else from you. Crawl back into your mom’s basement. I am done with you.

          • October 6, 2004 – The final Bush appointed Iraq Survey Group report is released. The report concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

            March 31, 2005 – The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” in its assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

          • “Donkey – This is my last response to you”

            Typical Repuglycan cut-and-run coward.

          • The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors: An Unnecessary War with Iraq

            Thousands of U$ Troops died MEANINGLESS Deaths, along with 100,000+ innocent Iraqi Civilians for George aWol Bu$h’s LIES!

            http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/

          • Bush & Cheney Should Be Charged with War Crimes Says Col. Wilkerson, Former Aide to Colin Powell

            http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/23/bush_cheney_should_be_charged_with

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Again were they! NO!!! You idiot.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Oh so your upset that a few terrorist were tortured? How about the american lives lost because of the terrorist!! Why do liberals always take the side of the terrorist over the US Soldier or over the US Citizen?

            The men tortured were captured on the battlefield and were terrorist. There goal is the kill Americans. Since you think a few terrorist getting tortured is so despicable and clearly a violation of some law somewhere. You must be absolutely livid about the 168 dead Palestinian children that were killed in the Obama drone strikes. Whew I can’t even imagine your rage when it comes to thinking about the 3 American Citizens that were collateral damage (murdered by Obama) in an Obama drone strike that was intended for yet another American Citizen that was also murdered by Obama. You would gladly bestow American Civil Rights and Liberties to the known tortured terrorist but deny them from actual American Citizens and then to top it off excuse the murdering of children.

          • Nicholad Mathis <== confessed pro-torture amoral conservatard scum.

          • Nicholas Mathis

            Wow, I see you are stepping up your name calling. Why didn’t you address the actions of Obama? You know the people KILLED by Obama Drone strikes. You can’t so you resort to calling people names.

          • So you’re an amoral pro-torture and pro-killing chickenhawk when the Criminal Bu$h Regime did it to a few “terrorists”, but are against killing a few “terrorists” when the Democratic administration does it?

            Amoral hypocrite much?

          • Nicholas Mathis

            So the 168 Palestinian children were terrorist? I don’t think so. Were the 4 Americans killed by the Obama Drone Strike terrorist, well 1 of the 3 might have been. He was still an American.

            There is a difference in killing foreign terrorist vs killing children and American citizens.

            Also, remember Bush went before the UN. Bush also sought and received Bipartisan Congressional Support for all military action. Obama has not done any of this.

            That makes you the hypocritical child murderer supporter. I’m sure your mother is so proud.

          • The U.N. says 7 in 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians

            August 2014

            GAZA CITY — The war in Gaza will now continue in a battle between databases to determine who was killed and why.

            The most contested number, the one that attracts the most stubborn insistence and ferocious rebuttal, is not the total fatalities on the Palestinian side, the more than 2,100 dead in the Gaza hostilities.

            The controversy centers instead on the ratio of civilians to combatants, or as the Israelis call them “terrorist operatives.”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-un-says-7-in-10-palestinians-killed-in-gaza-were-civilians-israel-disagrees/2014/08/29/44edc598-2faa-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

          • Nicholas Mathis

            This is an even different subject than what we started talking about. This has nothing to do with anything. I am through with you. You are a waste of my time. Theses deaths are a result of terrorist shooting missiles at a Israel. It also does not justify Obama’s killings.

          • So in your morally repugnant conservartard brain —

            Israel kills Palestinian “terrorists” = good
            U$* kills Palestinian “terrorists” = bad
            U$** tortures captive suspects = good

            *under a democratic president
            ** under a rethuglycan president

          • Marcos

            You lost the argument after your first reply! Shut the flip up already!

          • der_wotan

            There is Marcos again – trying to silence people, but has nothing to say himself. poor Marcos.

          • US hawk admits invasion was illegal
            http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

          • Marcos

            You still lost the argument

          • You’ve lost your mind.

          • UK Chilcot Inquiry: “The Iraq War Was Unlawful”. Unanimous Legal Conclusion of Foreign Office Lawyers

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-chilcot-inquiry-the-iraq-war-was-an-unlawful-unanimous-legal-opinion-of-foreign-office-lawyers/5317696

          • War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

            http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

          • Marcos

            He has saved thousands of people in Africa from dying of AIDS. He captured and killed Saddam. He unified to country following 9/11.

          • You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you Marcos?

          • Marcos

            Sharper than you! Also, more of an adult

        • Yadja

          That is why they can’t say anything more about this. They live in Glass Houses and are throwing stones. They are going to choke on it.

      • What Tom Cotton did was to do what every American has the right to do
        under the First Amendment. He has the right to post on his Blog as a
        public statement anything he wants to..JUST LIKE YOU AND I ARE DOING
        RIGHT NOW. He did not travel to a foreign country and meet with heads of
        state and he did not communicate in secret. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE…

      • AmazingSpiderHam

        Not saying his point is wrong but when someone starts a sentence saying I’m a republican than argues against their stance is usually a seminar poster.

      • Rev

        I completely agree with both of you that these senators broke the law. Such traitorous actions, as exemplified by these senators, promotes further decay of the American government. However, having said that, I doubt that any legal action will be imposed upon them.

        Why is it that such contemptuous public servants never face any legal repercussions?
        Who/what do they regard themselves as such that they find their actions above the law?

        How can such traitors be brought to justice?

        A petition can be started to demand that they be held accountable for breaking the law that they swore to uphold. Their paranoid and disrespectful mentalities are destroying the fabric of America.

        Hold these paranoid traitors accountable!!!

    • rust

      What never-never-land do you live in, Bub? Oh-Bow-Mao is a tyrant, and his partner, First Tranny Mike have made an Unholy Alliance to turn the nation’s schools into cess-pits of conformity and nanny-statism. Add into the mix Enforcers who will shoot your dog, taser your grandmother, launch a flash-bang grenade into your baby’s crib, beat you senseless for not wearing a seatbelt, arrest you for photographing them commit crimes, evidence-destroying costumed clowns who will protect their ‘roided up partners while stealing your cash. It’s Nazi Germany all over again and people like YOU, Mr Venereal Disease of 1965– who are cheering them on. Or maybe you just want to be first in line at the FEMA camp so you can make sure your blankets match the rags on the windows. I’ve got some advice for you: learning how to say “Nicht schiessen!” won’t help. Barry’s Buddies don’t speak German. You might want to learn it in Chinese…Bùyào pāi! 不要拍!

      • SpeakTruth

        You are the kind of people those 47 senators are trying to please. The GOP has probably been damaged beyond repair because of doomsdayers. Communism is comming! Christian persecution! America IS exceptional! Michelle is a monkey! They’re coming for my guns!! Students are being brainwashed! Take back our country!

        I truly thought this craziness was limited to small groups like Westboro Baptists and white supremacists. After reading online comments for the last few years, it is now crystal clear why the GOP has gone from being fiscally conservative to ineffective to treasonous. Perhaps the time has finally come for a third party. I would vote for someone running as “Reasonable”!

        • rust

          You moron. What if I’m not even an American? Take a step back and LOOK at your country. The rest of us see what’s going on: why don’t you?

          And I ask you, what part of what I wrote is untrue? I said nothing about the First Tranny being a monkey (rather racist on your part).

          There are three things that you are trying to demean that are certainly happening: the guns, the students, and the theft of the country. Are you suggesting that to be wary and aware of these issues is the mark of a crazy person? When Oh-Bow-Mao’s Jackbooted National Security Force breaks down your door because your kids turned you in for your gun in the bedside table, remember how you responded to this post. Remember the best colour for your FEMA blanket is brown. It’ll match the feces.

          By the way, only one “M” in “coming”.

          • SpeakTruth

            It doesn’t matter whether you are an American or not. I said you are the “kind” of person the senators are trying to please. It was the names you used in reference to the President and first lady that motivated me to respond. Those “clever” names (and others that are equally juvenile) are used by the people who comment on right-wing sites, and the theme is doom. The examples I gave are common statements on those sites and I did not accuse you, specifically, of saying them. However, your comments are similar to theirs.
            I am not saying that to be wary and aware of these and other issues is the mark of a crazy person. I am saying that it is crazy to believe the US is like Nazi Germany, or that the President is acting like Mao, or that his wife is a transsexual. I support the right to bear arms, but I also support gun control. I’m not sure what your beef is with the educational system, but I have several problems with it. However, I do not believe schools are “cess-pits of conformity” or “nanny-statism”. And the “take back our country” mantra from the far right is just silly.
            And thank you for pointing out my typo. I will correct it, if possible.

          • rust

            Your argument that “the senators are trying to please” me fails terribly. You haven’t a clue how politics works do you? For you it’s all “I love Big Brother!” and “Leave the First Tranny ALONE! WAAAHHHH!” and “USA USA USA USA!”

            Crazy that “USA USA USA!” is like Nazi Germany? Did you have a lobotomy recently? Or is it that you “grew up” in the last three years and all you remember is Check points and “take your shoes off”.

            Schools are NOT cesspits of Conformity? What happens when your opinion differs? And not just in elementary school, but in university? How many children have suffered recently at the hands of zero tolerance control freaks who don’t want them to enjoy childhood? Can’t involve “GUNS!” in play? ARREST children for making the universal FUCK YOU symbol of a gun by making a fist and pointing your finger? What a sorry sick mind you have.

            You are the problem. You are letting the rest of the psychotics, perverts and control freaks run what was a shining example of liberty into a miserable police state run by a man who may or may not be a FOREIGN NATIONAL. Oh yeah, that was never resolved, was it? Or are those quotes by his Butt Buddy Mike about being from Kenya all made up by his opposition.

            Are you ready for your two minutes hate, Winston? Be sure to take your FEMA blanket with you: yours looks cleaner than most.

          • Tommy

            Yep, rust, you’re pretty much a nut job (and a liar and a hate-monger).

          • SpeakTruth

            Those senators are, indeed, trying to appeal to people like yourself and ultra-conservative/libertarian groups. I absolutely know how politics work, sir, having a college degree in politics and being employed in the field for many years. With all due respect, you confuse my disgust of your disrespectful, sophomoric rant with not supporting your right to say it. Quite the contrary, I wholeheartedly support your right to advertise your ignorance. And although I consider myself very fortunate to be a US citizen, I do not agree with many things our government has done in the past or is doing today. Some of those things were and are shameful.
            I assure you I am old enough to remember smoking on airplanes, so I am aware of the restrictions imposed on our personal liberties. Some seem reasonable, others not so much. I absolutely agree that the zero “gun” policy for children playing is ridiculous.
            When, exactly, was our country a “shining example of liberty”, sir? That is merely the ideal that we work towards. Sometimes we overstep, over correct, but we keep working towards liberty for all.

          • rust

            Moron. You always assume those who can speak and write english to be your countrymen. Get your head out of your provincial ass, wake up and look around at the rest of the world.

            By the way, your FEMA bunk is waiting. If you hurry, you can choose what colour blanket you get: green or brown. I’d choose brown. It won’t show the feces as much.

          • SpeakTruth

            You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, sir. Or perhaps you merely suffer from an inflated ego. I absolutely do not assume you are a fellow countryman, and would be rather relieved if you were not.
            When someone uses plural pronouns such as “we” and “our” in conversation with another person, that person should not assume inclusion. There are hundreds of millions of US citizens past and present to whom I was referring. Your nationality or citizenship is entirely irrelevant.

          • rust

            Oh, well, that makes it better. We are relieved. Moron

          • SpeakTruth

            I’m glad, Rust! You seem a little tightly wound! Take care!

          • rust

            Ah, maybe we didn’t make it clear for you, Moron. Fuck off.

      • cat

        You blame all those terrible things on a man that wasn’t even born when it all began. We just have more news reports now. Not always accurate but definitely more. You think these things didn’t happen in the 50s? We had a family friend back then who had ptsd , back then they just said he wasn’t quite right not having come up with the term yet. One of his neighbors was concerned about him and called the sheriff. Our friend was home and refused to come out. The cops threw in tear gas and shot him dead when he stumbled out. He had committed no crime and had no weapon. Government injecting blacks with syphilis, yup it happened. You think destroying evidence is new, nope.. We just didn’t use to speak of those things. There’s not much new under the sun as far as human behavior is concerned. As much fun as it is to blame our current president, he didn’t start all this and neither did his predecessor.

        • rust

          Christ on a Christie’s Cracker, will you listen to yourself? Just because it wasn’t addressed in the fifties, does not make it any better in the twenty-first century. Your great hero Oh-Bow-Mao has allowed great atrocities to happen for his own political purposes, further degraded the office that he usurped by his indiscriminate use of a pen to undermine the nation’s founding document, and bowed before foreign princes. A tyrant yes, but a puppet of the powerful.

          • cat

            You certainly have your fair share of anger.

            I don’t know if you have heros, but I am a little too old to believe in heroic fairy tales myself. Nor do I blame anyone alive today for the Spanish Inquisition or the black plague. There are some things that could be fixed but it would take more than any one person to do it. And more than one decade. And Superman and Wonder woman aren’t going to come and save the day. And POTUS is just a flesh and blood man after all is said and done, no more no less.

          • rust

            Typical commie. Attack me for ANGER? Where do you read ANGER in my post, dipshit?

            And as for your stupid, stupid arguments, you answer your own questions. This, of course, does nothing to resolve the fact that your boy Barry (the pot smoking, cocaine using, closeted homosexual) is a tyrant.

            And why would anyone bring up fictional heroes (notice the spelling) to solve real world problems? Do you live in a fantasy land?

            As for your president being flesh and blood, and your excuse for his ineffectiveness in resolving issues in the USSA, that certainly doesn’t stop him from taking a dump on the Constitution, now does it? Remember to take off your shoes next time you want to board an aircraft. Osama bin Hidin’ in your underwear.

            Get behind the Bat-Signal! Call out for the Avengers to Assemble! HOLLYWOOD is here to promote the propaganda that will make you love your God, the Television.

          • cat

            Ok, not angry then. Happy, sad, sensitive, joking ? Possibly joking. Good one. : )

          • rust

            Moron. Go troll a Copsucker site.

          • ANNG14

            You are overdue for your meds.

          • rust

            Eat shit, fuck face.

          • ANNG14

            Hurry up, your little yellow school bus is outside.

          • rust

            I said it before, and I will say it again, shut the fuck up, shithead.

          • Tommy

            So much for the wisdom of low-functioning adolescent trolls.

          • rust

            So much for the snappy comebacks of decrepit minds. Shithead.

          • rust

            Even better, retired researcher: get back to the old age home, they’re missing you already. No-one wants to listen to you or read your drivel. Like the food they serve you, your opinions are all regurgitated.

    • OF COURSE YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN VD. YOU HAVE US ALL FOOLED BY THE WAY.. (Wink WINK)

    • Travis Olsen

      The law makes it a crime for citizens to interfere in foreign policy
      “without authority of the United States.” But it does not specify what
      that means or who that authority can be. Are they probably violating an act that is from the late 1700s? Yes, but there is no way a legitimate legal prosecution can happen under the Logan act. We could look at the reason the logan act was inacted, because a private citizen, with no position in the United States government, went to try and negotiate on the behalf of the United States, despite him not being elected to a position that represents the US. There is no legal grounds to say that Congressmen of the
      United states do not have that authority in the Logan act due to how vague it is. This issue more highlights to me the continuation of the checks and balances in the US government in our day and time. You could argue that under the original intent of the law, it was meant only to apply to non-elected government officials.

    • Crusader

      Obama did not get consent or advisement from Senate as Logan Act States Period.

    • Yadja

      You just keep on waiting because it ain’t gonna happen. O has killed thousands of civilians with his drone strikes. He has negotiated with a country that wants our demise and it is he who is Treasonous according to the wording of the Logan Act. A sitting president needs the advice and the consent of the Senate to negotiate a Treaty and in effect this is what O was doing. He also did not intend to go through Congress but the UN just as he did with Gaddafi.

      The UN is not the governing body of American Policy and the International Court is not our judiciary body….YET……and you won’t like it when or if it were to be.

      Your O is a Traitor and a Destroyer of people and countries. Too boot he is interfering with elections in Israel. I hope he chokes on his spite as he is spewing that we have caught him once again breaking our laws.

    • Lloyd Martinson

      Read you history about the constitution and what democrats have don on the past as well as personal visits overseas

    • Rich

      What law was broken? First off you lie about being a Republican and puke out the standard liberal talking points. Don’t be a coward and admit what you are.

      So what law? The Logan Act? The same one that was broken by many Democrats through the years?
      1975 Senators John Sparkman & George McGovern visited Cuba and met with government?
      1983 Senator Teddy Kennedy Went to the USSR to stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help
      Teddy run against Reagan in 1984?
      1984 House Speaker Jim Wright & 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua.
      1985 Senator John Kerry Kerry & Senator Tom Harkin traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime.
      2002 Representatives Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Mike Thompson visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime; stating “the president of the United States will lie
      to the American people in order to get us into this war.
      2002 Senator Jay Rockefeller said he took a trip by myself to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq,
      2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Tom Lantos, Louise M. Slaughter, Nick J. Rahall II, and Keith Ellison (D-MN). went Syrian Bashar Assad to discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace
      talks between Syria and Israel.

    • TexasVetgal

      Constant attack on 2nd amendment, using agenices of the government to attack conservatives (IRS),
      Allying with al queda or its affiliates, providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

      ABSOLUTELY OBAMA IS A TYRANT, AND GUILTY OF MULTIPLE COUNTS OF TREASON.

  • H. H. Miller

    Suddenly, democrats care about separation of powers. Too funny.

    • Yehudah ben Shlomo

      Suddenly, Republicans don’t care about separation of powers. Too funny.

      • H. H. Miller

        Whats good for the goose… deal with it.

        • Marsha Matthews

          Great attitude and great way to run a country. Taking your toys and going home now?

          • H. H. Miller

            Agreed, rule by fiat sucks.

  • And notice how the fake “liberal media” doesn’t dare say “treason”.

    • iamozy

      Because it doesn’t qualify as “treason”.

    • Jonathan Osborne

      Using the term “liberal media” already shows that you don’t have a single thing of worth to say.

  • Sad

    Is it really any wonder that these 47 represent a party that denounces a college education as “elitist”? Breaking g the law and disgracing America to make a cheap political point. The state of American politics is truly vapid. These congressmen are pathetic.

  • Julius Henry

    The Logan act??? For f sakes, the Logan act was violated without consequence by Dr Logan (whom it was named after, for his actions in France in the 1790s) during the war of 1812 in england. It has never been enforced. It would be awkward for Obama to act in it now, after senator/candidate Obama negotiated with the likes of Pres. Karazi be fore being elected himself.

    • LaDon Aridge

      If you don’t see the difference between a private individual (such as Logan in his attempts prior to the war of 1812) in an attempt to broker peace and a group of congressmen who directly undermine a sitting president by telling a foreign power that he doesn’t have the authority to negotiate, that’s a you problem.

      • Julius Henry

        Joe Biden disagrees with you:
        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-was-senates-constitutional-power-he-was-against-it_881791.html?nopager=1

        Ted Kennedy?
        http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

        Or how about when ten democrats signed by 10 members of the U.S. House Of Representatives, dated March 20, 1984, addressed to Comandante Daniel Ortega. Ortega was, at the time, the leader of the government of Nicaragua.

        Or various people such as Pelosi, or Carter negotiating with Hamas?

        Or how about Obama himself?
        Afghanistan (July 20, 2008) U.S. Sen. Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Obama reiterated his call for additional U.S. forces to deal with conditions in that he described as “precarious and urgent”. Obama spent time talking to U.S. military and diplomatic leadership, and to the leaders of Afghanistan, about whether the U.S. has the right strategy and the right resources to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, and to support lasting stability. The message from Obama to the Afghan government is this: we want a strong partnership based on “more for more” – more resources from the United States and NATO, and more action from the Afghan government to improve the lives of the Afghan people.

        Anbar Province, Western Iraq (July 21, 2008) U.S. Sen. Obama held talks with Sunni tribal leaders and stated, “There is security progress, but now we need a political solution” and he repeated his goal of withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months should he become president.

        Ramadi, Iraq (July 21, 2008) U.S. Sen. Obama met with militiamen of the US-backed Awakening Councils movement – a tribal alliance whose members turned against al-Qaeda last year. Ahmed Abu Risha, head of the Awakening Councils, said tribal chiefs told Mr Obama that any withdrawal of US forces from Anbar should be carried out cautiously.

        Baghdad, Iraq (July 21, 2008) U.S. Sen. met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki who told Obama that he hoped US troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010. Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, said that Obama was “completely wrong” to press for withdrawal timetables. Sen. McCain stated “When you win wars, troops come home”. (Sept. 2008) The New York Post has Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, on record, stating Barack Obama tried to interfere with ongoing negotiations with Iraqi leaders while on his trip to Iraq recently. While telling his supporters his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months, Barack Obama was doing something far different while he was in Iraq. He was trying to talk Iraqi officials into delaying the agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence from Iraq, Zebari said in an interview with the New York Post. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July. “He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington”.

        • LaDon Aridge

          And this is part of what makes you an idiot.

          “Or how about Obama himself?
          Afghanistan (July 20, 2008) U.S. Sen. Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Obama reiterated his call for additional U.S. forces to deal with conditions in that he described as “precarious and urgent”. Obama spent time talking to U.S. military and diplomatic leadership, and to the leaders of Afghanistan, about whether the U.S. has the right strategy and the right resources to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, and to support lasting stability.”
          Which is FAR different from ‘You know President Bush doesn’t have the authority to make binding agreements with you and when I’m president I can undo everything with a stroke of a pen.’
          Senators, Governors, heck even Mayors meet with foreign officials. It’s not the meeting that makes this action outrageous. It’s the content of this particular letter and in NONE of your examples did you come up with anything even relatively close to the step that your teapartiers are taking.

          • liblogic

            Show empirical irrefutable evidence that THIS letter did not mean exactly what it said that AFTER OBAMA LEAVES OFFICE that it will lol be null and void. You probably haven’t even read it. Idiot

          • LaDon Aridge

            That letter cannot possibly mean AFTER OBAMA LEAVES OFFICE that it will (not sure why lol is thrown in there) be null and void. That’s a decision for the next president AND NOT CONGRESS which is what makes it such an egregious blunder.

            Idiot.

  • Ken Chapel

    It appears the internet has dumbed down all discourse……reread the Logan Act…..inviting someone to speak to the Congress is CLEARLY within their rights…..and sending a letter to Obama’s pals, the Ayatollahs that merely lays out US Law is not negotiating any terms…..Obama has violated the Constitution so many times….you want Republicans to be prosecuted for this non violation..ok…just as long as Obama is head of the line

    • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

      This is not about Bibi’s speech, dimbulb.

      • Ken Chapel

        Imwas responding to VD65 who brought it up…Tunnel Vision

    • Hugh1

      ….is not negotiating any terms…? What do you have, a reading comprehension problem? The Cotton 47 are telling our enemy not to take the deal because it isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Go listen to Fox make-a-believe News and learn how to rephrase what you just said.

    • KhadijahMuhammad

      Well, the problem is that we are subjected to legal analysis by journalists and bloggers, none of which are necessarily well educated in these matters.
      .
      Perhaps Volokh will blog on it. That would be worth reading.

      • Pixy Misa

        Lawfare has posted on it: http://www.lawfareblog.com

        Their opinion is that apart from a technical error with respect to the term “ratify”, the letter is legally sound, and that the Logan Act may arguably does not apply, and is very likely to be unconstitutional anyway.

    • der_wotan

      Again a real racist shows his color: “Obama’s pals, the Ayatollahs” … Question: are you a speechwriter for the TeaPoop folks – you literacy is telling so much …

      • Ken Chapel

        I see you are neolib…everything about Obama is racist

        • der_wotan

          I’m not what you think what you think – but you are are what I think you are, as you prove it with your words…

          • Marcos

            I know exactly what you are.

      • Marcos

        Considering the last part of your statement, you are the last one that should be correcting anyone’s literacy.

    • Marsha Matthews

      Please provide empirical evidence of impeachable, high crimes and misdemeanors by POTUS. I mean, if there’s “so many times” that he “violated” the Constitution, it should be easy for you, right?

      • Marcos

        he killed American citizens without due process while they were in foreign countries.

  • Greg Hand

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States???
    How funny, considering congress is the authority of the U.S.

    • liblogic

      Exactly! What a bunch of morons! Especially the fake gop er on the first comment lol

  • Evony Master

    I’m sure the author of this protested just as fiercely when Nancy Pelosi was in Damascus corresponding with Assad. The GOP may indeed have violated this act, however this act is actually the problem because it is far to restrictive on what anyone can actually do in regards to foreign nations. It should have been limited to actual negotiations, because nowadays even going on the nightly news could be considered “Intercourse or correspondence.”

    • KhadijahMuhammad

      Well, quite right. Good chance the Logan Act would be struck down on Constitutional grounds.
      .
      You cannot pass a law that prevents a person from writing a letter. Gross violation of the first amendment.

      • der_wotan

        You’re out of bounce here – and you know it.

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/03/10/flashback-big-three-ignored-ted-kennedys-letter-soviet-union
    It should be pointed out also that in a prior ruling concerning the visit of George McGovern to Cuba, the State Department itself asserted that members of Congress are given wide latitude in their activities.

  • MORONS! Obama was VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION BY DOING AN END-AROUND THE SENATE.

    The President cannot hold a secret meeting with a foreign country and negotiate a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. He cannot make treaties by Executive Fiats like he has for all the other UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS HE’S DONE TO THE CONSTITUTION.

    OBAMA CANNOT

    CREATE NEW LAWS
    REWRITE EXISTING LAWS
    FAIL TO ENFORCE LAWS
    ENFORCE ONLY PARTS HE LIKES
    WAIVE THE LAWS FOR HIS FRIENDS
    VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION
    IGNORE CONGRESS WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    OVERRULE CONGRESS WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    ESPECIALLY HOLD SECRET MEETINGS WITH A TERRORIST-SPONSORING NATION

    • Marsha Matthews

      The Logan Act is quite clear:

      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.

      Violation of the Logan Act is a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison, as well as fines. While these Senators are elected officials, they do not have the right to negotiate or interfere in negotiations with foreign powers. In 1936, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion concerning United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp:

      [T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

      In a Foreign Relations report to the Senate, Sutherland also notes the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

      The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

      http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/10/white-house-petition-file-charges-against-47-republican-traitors-who-tried-to-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal/

      • liblogic

        Hey dummy. Congress IS the authority of the u.s. wow

      • liblogic

        I’d love to know how many of you idiots had even heard of this act. Lol. It was drug up from the dusty library under the white house by some desperate morons

  • Brandon
    • Brandon

      No it is not

  • Jack Meov

    Wow, completely wrong.

    The Logan Act covers PRIVATE correspondence not an OPEN LETTER

    More importantly, Congress has authority under the Constitution over foreign commerce and the Senate has advice and consent authority over treaties. Since any foreign agreement of necessity falls under one or both powers, the Logan Act cannot apply to sitting members of the Senate because it would be an unconstitutional infringement.

    I still think they are idiots for doing this, but it is within their constitutional power. Heck, Nancy Pelosi spoke directly with Syria without violating it, so the idea that an open letter does is imbecilic.

  • Shane Edward Prince

    Perhaps you geniuses missed out on the part where members of Congress are immune from the Logan Act? Or was that not part of your remedial legal reading requirement? Idiots.

  • Libertybelle

    I was just speaking about this morning and was sure they violated something. GOPERS are really stupid people and very much capable of being this stupid. Naturally, our enemies are very much smarter than even the occupant of the White House. And foreign leaders, for the most part, know not to trust or believe anything any American official ever says except if they promise to destroy their nations or murder their people.

    • liblogic

      Who is stupid? You are a moronic hypocrite lol. Post after post shows your ilk being stupid and the original article even says they stole this from your dem play book ysmfmimf!! I see reading comprehension isn’t your your Forte

      • Libertybelle

        How stupid are you for assuming I am a Democrat? Pretty stupid, I’ m sure.

  • disqus_x6FzihgY3G

    I’m not a legal type here, but, shouldn’t these 47 “Senators” at least be censured? I’m not sure what that measure requires. However there is a law that covers their behaviour and it seems pretty clear from the reading of the text of the law:

    “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.”

    The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 (1799-01-30))

    • liblogic

      What a bunch of inglorious bs you guys are. The United States is not defined as the president. Also. ..it’s not an unprecedented act.

  • Admin Istrator

    The Logan Act assumes that the president is not behaving as a fascist traitor. It would be hard to trample on someone who has never fully represented the citizens of the United States in the first place. The man in the office was elected by dead people and illegal immigrants so what right does he have to negotiate a deal that our allied nations are begging him to avoid. If the president is acting as a tyrant, he has no reason to expect Congress or any other body of responsibility to respect him when Republicans do what Pelosi did in the first place.

  • aes sidhe

    On Monday, 47 Republican senators led by Tom Cotton, R-Ark., released an “open letter” to Iran’s leaders noting that any deal the regime signs with President Obama without the approval of Congress could be revoked by a future president or changed by Congress. The White House went into a tizzy trying to portray the move as somehow “unprecedented” — a view that has found a friendly audience with the media.

    Watch as Pierce Brosnan takes on snowy twists and turns in the all-new 2016 Kia Sorento.

    PROMOTED BY KIA SORENTO

    Vice President Joe Biden claimed the letter “ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether democrat or republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.” The New York Daily News featured an editorial blasting the letter on its front page, with photos of the senators and the bold-faced headline “TRAITORS.” A more muted NBC roundup called the move “extraordinary — if not unprecedented.” In reality, whatever one’s view of the letter, to call it “unprecedented” is to ignore history. The reality is that on many occasions, Democrats have reached out to foreign leaders to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting Republican president.

    Here are just five examples.

    1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan

    A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor.

    2. “Dear Comandante”

    In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.

    3. Pelosi visited Syrian ruler Bashar Assad

    In 2007, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. As the Associated Press reported at the time, “The meeting was an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected.”

    4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush’s policy

    As Stephen Hayes recounts: “In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush’s case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. ‘We don’t mind being used,’ he said.”

    5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.

    On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration’s efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter’s letter was an attempt “to thwart the Bush administration’s request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush’s criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of ‘good faith talks,’ and Carter placed his interpretation of that standard above the administration’s.”

    • liblogic

      Lost you at “Biden says” ha

  • Joe Blunt Ltp

    I’m a liberal and upset with the letter sent by congress.

    That said, I think any application of the Logan Act will come down to an argument of just who is vested with the authority of the US. It is a debatable question for a judiciary to consider and makes application of the act problematic at best. It does not state that the president alone may appoint this authority, so perhaps congress is also vested with this authority.

    The quote from Sutherland however, is damning in the present circumstance. His quotes speak to the structure of the constitutionally granted powers in legislative and executive branches. The statements also imply that the “good-faith” or “trustworthiness” of our whole nation is bound up in this arrangement.

    As congress attempts to meddle in the nation’s foreign deal making, the ‘good faith’ of future US negotiation from POTUS or Congress comes into question. Assuming the partisan divide continues into the forseeable future, I expect other nations will come to the table with heightened skepticism and reduced earnestness to enter into any new treaty or formal agreement. In other words, this has reduced our much celebrated Exceptionalism.

  • MORE STUFF THE LEFT WILL SWEEP UNDER THE RUG..
    Ted Kennedy was a ‘collaborationist’: Aided KGB for political purposes… working to get Elected against Ronald Reagan.

    FACTS AND TRUTH NEVER SEEM TO BOTHER THE OBAMA MEDIA LAP DOGS AND THEIR PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ALLIES!!

    On Monday, March 9 and Tuesday, March 10, the “big loser progressive
    three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC) networks pounced on a letter signed by 47
    Republican senators to the leaders of Iran regarding its negotiations
    with the Obama administration over its nuclear program.

    Despite
    the networks’ eagerness to tout Democratic opposition to the GOP letter,
    on two separate occasions the “big three” completely ignored a letter
    penned by former Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) written to the Soviet
    Union in 1983 aimed at undermining President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear
    negotiations with the Communist regime.

    According to Forbes, “in
    1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an
    arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man
    at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man
    in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.”

    Following Senator Kennedy’s death in 2009, Forbes decided to revisit the
    controversial letter and once again the “big three” remained completely
    silent on the controversial move by Senator Ted Kennedy.

    From the Forbes article detailing Kennedy’s letter to Andropov:

    Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro
    quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President
    Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a
    hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only
    real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and
    Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues,
    according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important
    of the election campaign.”

    First he offered to visit
    Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator,
    would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of
    nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing
    during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with
    Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

    Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few
    interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American
    people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and
    interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then
    Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have
    representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact
    Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The
    senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as
    coming from the American side.”

    While ABC, CBS, and NBC were
    quick to promote Democratic opposition to a GOP letter to the Iranian
    leadership, the same standard was not applied when a prominent
    Democratic Senator openly tried to work with the Soviet Union to
    sabotage President Reagan’s dealings with the communist regime.

    LOOK .. HAVE WE NOT LEARNED YET ??

    WE CANNOT CO -EXIST WITH THESE PEOPLE.. REVOLT REMOVE RESTORE… OR SECEDE!!

  • and some more the Washington DC Oligarchy..

    FACTS! If Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did
    these Democrats: Why were they not hauled up as traitors.. OH Let me
    guess.. they are PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT LEFTISTS

    Senators John
    Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited
    Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they
    did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department
    ignored their activity.

    Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983,
    Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald
    Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991
    from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri
    Andropov:

    On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s
    close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The
    senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through
    confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee
    of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

    What
    was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet
    foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in
    1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with
    explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be
    better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then
    he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United
    States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have
    representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact
    Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other
    rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of
    Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

    Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in
    1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the
    Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against
    the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

    House
    Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel
    Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua,
    praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in
    your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

    In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

    There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace
    process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going
    on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre
    atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of
    President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the
    Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war
    that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was
    freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill
    office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised
    news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the
    United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times
    between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship
    which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

    Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire
    proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn
    to Mr. Wright.”

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the
    pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to
    negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
    joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators
    “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a
    cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House
    initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an
    immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega
    government:

    We are still trying to overthrow the politics of
    another country in contravention of international law, against the
    Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North
    Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North
    Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me.
    And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the
    Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to
    them.

    Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI),
    and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad
    to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the
    groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W.
    Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the
    American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with
    his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the
    Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.”
    Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

    The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my
    opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United
    States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these
    inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open.
    And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only
    Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were
    emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the
    humanitarian situation.

    Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002,
    Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in
    January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of
    the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made
    up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined
    set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have
    given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush
    administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad,
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The
    New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues,
    including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace
    talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry
    Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J.
    Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau
    chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that
    change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the
    opposition.”

    The Constitution of the United States delegates
    commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2
    clearly states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
    Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
    Senators present concur…” As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law
    School writes, Senators have a good argument that “the President lacks
    the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive
    agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements
    have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major
    exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement.”

    LOOK .. HAVE WE NOT LEARNED YET ??

    WE CANNOT CO -EXIST WITH THESE PEOPLE.. REVOLT REMOVE RESTORE… OR SECEDE!!

    • Killian

      Because the White House did not pursue prosecution. If they broke the law then they should have been held accountable too.

      • liblogic

        Yeah because that was brought up now lol. Wow

  • Jon Ireland

    You’re an absolute moron for so many reasons it is difficult to count them all. Allow me to try my best:

    “Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act.”

    Wrong. Obama’s ‘commitments’ have no force of law unless passed by Congress. Your apparent belief that Obama can make whatever commitments he wants without congressional approval shows that you’re the one ignorant of ‘separation of powers’ not the Senators.

    “In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.”

    No they didn’t because the Logan Act specifically applies to negotiations, not to inviting someone to speak. I could invite Netanyahu to speak at my birthday party and it’s not a violation of the Logan Act unless I pretend I have American negotiating authority and offer him deals.

    There’s also the somewhat minor problem that the Logan Act itself has never been held to be constitutional, and the courts have actually suggested it might not be. In the very same wikipedia entry you link to:

    “The Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms “defeat” and “measures,” but did not rule on the question.”

    It’s odd you left that out of your post. Almost like the most recent mention of the Logan Act in a court case contradicts your argument so you decided to leave it out.

    Progressives have a difficult time reading, don’t they?

  • kevin777

    what negotiations did the GOP make with Iran? Where’s the source?

    • liblogic

      Yeah…we’re us some empirical irrefutable proof? Lol these morons! So funny. Everything is refutable even whatever crap “evidence” they might come up with to support their outrageous claims that people are racist bEca use they would rather have west in the white house and that the job market has “turned around” lol. So moronic.

  • kevin777

    Washingtons Blog is an Alex Jones like disaster of journalism run by closet commies.

  • JosephConrad

    THE ACTION BY THIS GROUP OF LOW-LIFE WHITE MEAN WAS degrading to our African-American PRESIDENT & THIS NATION! They did it PURPOSELY & THOUGHTFULLY with MALICE! THEY NEED TO STEP DOWN FROM THIER OFFICES & NEW ELECTIONS SCHEDULED! Democracy is DIRTY but these men were VILE TRAITORS!

  • Professional Comedian

    I can’t believe the Grubers fell for this sham story so easily.

  • “Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders” – Only an Obamacrat idiot would make this assertion. First off they are not negotiating anything. It was an open letter explaining a facet of our Constitutional process. Second, the Logan act specifically applies to “private” citizen communication. These are elected representatives speaking as part of the US Government establishment. Third, it amounts to a fart in a whirlwind. Iran is going to do whatever they want regardless of what anyone thinks they are getting them to agree to. (It’s a proven fact.) I’m sure the senators are extremely sorry this offended the sensitive feelings of the Obamacrat cult of personality.

  • J1935

    For the sake of the future of our Constitution, this Republican letter to Iran must be dealt with to the extent provided by the Constitution itself and susequent laws pertaining to the Logan Act. These senators are not misguided children. They are a major threat to our government and our way of life.

  • KlugerRD

    What these Senators did was publish an op-ed in the form of an open letter. That comes under free speech which you lefties seem to ignore now.

    What they said in that letter was a civics lesson about how our government works because it is evident that Obama has been misrepresenting his legal authority in these so-called negotiations. NOWHERE in that letter was there one sentence trying to negotiate any terms unlike what Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats did in the past which were clear violations of the Logan Act

    And what is being grossly misrepresented is Obama’s ability to make what is called a sole-executive agreement in foreign policy according to our laws. Unlike domestic policy, when it comes to foreign policy agreements a sole-executive agreement can only be made when there is an existing treaty (which there is not) or when there has been a vote by Congress preceding that agreement (which there is not).
    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf

  • bridget gethins

    The senators disrespect every single American. Their disregard for our laws, our government. Their abuse of those laws. Example, how many times has speaker boehner called for strike down the Affordable Care Act? Over 60 times. But bring votes that benefit Americans like wages, creating jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, the list goes on. So now, to create another war the senate sends a threatening letter to Iran and that day Cotton meets with war profiteer companies. Greed, money, corruption. And they don’t care. Sociopaths.
    Oh, and what about upholding their oath of office. And no matter what these pundits say, yes, the 47 senators who wrote a threatening letter to Iran broke the Logan Act. And this letter seems to imply that they know they will be in power of our Government in the future. How do they know? Is there a takeover coming? Are they threatening President Obama?
    Sorry, this letter to Iran shows clearly, that they who signed this have contempt for all Americans and our President.

  • Robert Woods

    As noted in many posts here,using the term “tyrant” to label the President is deceptive, and at most illusive. Tyrants are law breakers. President Obama has broken no laws. Let’s be clear about this. Both he and the First Lady are the “smartest” and “most-educated” people we’ve ever had in the White House. They are also the most modern, and “color blind.” They both know “Law.” Could this be the real problem for the “disrespectful” 47? I know what it’s like to be smart, successful, well-spoken, and a
    “token – Black” in elite places. We are not easily accepted by all.
    The “47” are acting like Frat-boys about to be thrown off the hill. How dare they think that they are the best governors of Blacks and other Minorities… Like the First Family, there are 1000’s of others out there just like them who could successfully run this country in a New York minute… and run it well. There will be another Obama.
    Republicans need to grow up and start acting like they can again govern the country, and stop throwing seniors, minorities, women, vets, and immigrants under the bus because they can’t topple a single man. What are they going to say and do when a Woman resides as President of the U.S.? How are they going to “trash” this Woman President to their wives… and their daughters?

  • OldBoatingGuy

    If the Logan Act won’t suffice then I would suggest the Statatue below;

    “Seditious Conspiracy” is a Federal Crime under United States law. The U.S. Criminal Statue is; 18 U.S.C. § 2384, and it states the following;

    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both”.

    [For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted]

  • Anon.

    No. People need to understand our laws better. Congress broke no law. In the United States v. Curtiss-Wright the statement issued by Justice Sutherland was HIGHLY contextual. I̲f̲, in fact, “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation,” was generally true, then having AMBASSADORS would be in violation of this as well. Why? Well an AMBASSADOR is: an accredited diplomat sent by a country as its OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE to a foreign country! I am sick and tired of these idiot that say idiotic things like this whenever their precious Obozo’s policies are under fire. Grow up. The Logan act states that, “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States….” guess what…CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. IT’S THEIR JOB. THEY ARE PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND ARE EQUAL TO…EQUAL IN…POWER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SUPREME COURT. I AM SICK OF READING ALL THESE LIES ONLINE THAT DEGRADE CONGRESS AND MAKE IT SEEM AS IF THEY HAVE LESS AUTHORITY THAN THE EXEC. BRANCH! This is not a legal issue and Obama knows it which is PRECISELY WHY they are not being “prosecuted”. Get your head out of your butt-cheeks, fellow Americans. Stop listening to horse-crap that America-hating fools tell you! J̲u̲s̲t̲ because someone is passionate does not make them right!

  • Yadja

    I just read the Logan Act and it is the president who committed Treason according to the wording of this Act. He can only negotiate treaties with other Nations with the Consent and Advice of the Senate and then the Ratification of the Treaty by the Senate.

    O went out on his own and attempted to bring about an agreement with a country who wants our demise and totally bypass the Congress. The Congress had every right, with a rogues president to bring to the attention of the country that any agreement with O would not be binding.

    O fully intended to use the UN as his sounding board and his backing just as he used a UN Resolution “Responsibility to Protect” written by George Soros to take Gaddafi out bypassing our Congress. Knowing that he could not prove Gaddafi an imminent threat.

    The Democrats opened their mouths and stuck their foot in it. Kerry and Pelosi both visited countries and leaders when a sitting president was not in agreement with it. You best not be living in a Glass House if your going to throw stones.

  • gladness

    If you want to, destroy my sweater… Just pull this string, and walk away…

  • Nancy

    we need a demand for a citizen’s arrest. This is a felony, and no person committing a felony can run for president…not sure about serving and getting paid!!!

  • CJ4904

    “without authority of the United States” They had authority from the majority of Americans that supported this letter and to halt Obama’s personal agenda without listening or consulting Congress.

  • Cathy C

    BULL CRAP ! They are trying to save us, while obummer sells us down the river.

  • Yadja

    A friend made me aware that the Logan Act gives the Authority to negotiate with countries to the United States, that is the wording it does not say Authority is given to the President. Therefore the Congress, being a branch of our government had every right to write this letter.

    The President is a branch of our government but he is not the government.

  • Mike

    Cute, but Congress is exempt from the Logan Act.

  • its_that_guy_again

    Teddy Kennedy asked the Russians to interfere in Reagan’s election. http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/03/did_ted_kennedy_seek_soviets_h.html

    Obama has given US taxpayer’s money ($350,000) to the opposition for the defeat Netanyahu in yesterday’s election. This was BEFORE Netanyahu’s visit by the way.

  • darkrage000

    “In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act.”
    ” in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States”
    Congress in no way engaged in negotiations with IRAN. we are NOT in the middle of negotiating with ISRAEL or have disputes or controversies with ISRAEL, therefor Congress did NOT violate the Logan Act.
    Netanyahu primarily spoke about Terrorism and how how a regime that funds terrorism getting nuclear weapons would affect that war.
    Since neither Congress NOR Netanyahu are involved in these ‘talks’, there was no violation of the Law
    Now, if Congress had invited Ayatollah Khamenei to speak, then yes, there would have been a Violation

    Now for the other foot argument…
    Article II, Section 3, provides that “he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

    People are trying to use the as a ‘sole power’ of the president… except its not STATED as a POWER or AUTHORITY, rather is stated as a REQUIREMENT.
    he “SHALL” receive….
    It is his DUTY and OBLIGATION under the Constitution to meet and greet with these people.
    When Obama decided to NOT greet, meet or Host Netanyahu, he violated Article II, Section 3

    now…

    “[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates.”
    This give NO authority of the State Department to enter into negotiations in the name of the President or the USA, nor can any Ambassadors. the PRESIDENT ALONE must speak with them and negotiate

    Secretary of State John Kerry has NO Authority to negotiate, and according to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), he is FORBIDDEN to do so.

    We seem to be ignoring the actual words of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings to bash at the Republicans in Congress and then reinterpret them again in support of Obama…

    You cant have it both ways

  • johnmcc

    Once again, the people who have consistently shown their
    contempt for the Constitution have once again shown their complete
    ignorance of our founding document.

    First, the Senate, and Senators have every right to state openly
    what the Constitution says is their right. Second, it was Obama, and
    Bush before him, who have broken the law, NOT the Senate.

    Allow me to elucidate; The Constitution requires the President to
    not only seek the guidance of the Senate BEFORE any possible
    negotiations, he must get permission from the Senate to talk with the
    leaders of other countries, and finally, he must get the approval of
    a minimum of 2/3 of the Senators considered present by the opening
    roll call (usually 67) to have the treaty ratified.

    The Constitution is clear on this matter no matter how hard
    criminals in government have made multiple excuses for its violation
    or justified their actions by claiming their Constitutionality in
    spite of the opposite being true.

    “The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
    Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
    Senators present concur….”

    What does this mean? Well, if words are to mean anything and hold
    people to a designed purpose, this means that, it is the President
    who ultimately does our treaty negotiations. However, this is ONLY
    done after the Senate has first been consulted for their Advice
    because the word Advice (capitalized in the Constitution for emphasis
    of its importance) means: “guidance or recommendations concerning
    prudent future action, typically given by someone regarded as
    knowledgeable or authoritative.” Did you catch that? Advice means
    “Guidance or recommendations concerning prudent FUTURE action…”
    That’s right, the President must first consult the Senate on his
    proposed actions prior to taking them. Next, what is the definition
    of Consent? Consent is precisely defined as; “permission for
    something to happen or agreement to do something.” So this first
    part of the Treaty clause is very clear that the President needs to
    seek the guidance of the Senate for any and all treaty negotiations
    and THEN must get their permission to proceed with the Negotiation.
    Failure to do so is a violation of the Constitution or in other
    words, is breaking the law.

    Any time the President has started negotiations with other world
    leaders on behalf of the United States without the explicit guidance
    and permission of the Senate, he has violated the Constitution. He
    has overtly broken the highest law of the land, and yet here you are,
    people citing anything BUT the Constitution to justify your calls for
    these perfectly legitimate Senate actions to be considered
    criminal…These Senators are anything BUT criminal… they are
    starting to actually DO THEIR JOB!!

  • Dr Smileyface

    I can recommend this discussion for those suffering from insomnia. There’s nothing quite like reading pages of whines from Americans about which corrupt party is the most corrupt.

    My only caveat here is – don’t try consuming too much at one sitting or depression could result.

  • 81lowrider

    Good God, the unbridled hatred of Obama is scary. I don’t remember this level of vitriol being spewed by the left at GWB

  • Bailey Nix

    Hmm from what I read it seems only the president can negotiate.is Obama there? Then if that’s the case every treaty negotiated without the president being the one negotiating violates the logan act according to U.S. vs Curtis-Right Export Group ruling..So technically according to that definition every person that hasn’t been the President negotiating a treaty is guilty since 1936..
    So if that is true and Obama wishes to invoke the act,wouldn’t he also be involved in a conspiracy to violate it as would every President ?I am no law expert, I can only see what I read on Wikipedia on the Logan Act..

  • TexasVetgal

    No letter was ever sent… Unlike Ted Kennedy GOING to Soviets and undermining Reagans policy.

    It was posted on the internet, it does not violate the Logan act to remind a foreign government that Congress is required to “ratify” treaties, and subsequent administration may nullify the agreement.

    Obama is treasonous and in bed with Muslim Brotherhood affilated people appointed to postions within this administration.

    He and many members of Congress should be arrested for Treason.

  • Veracious Libra

    Dear Sir,
    Your whole argument is wrong from the start. The first sentence of the Logan Act reads “without authority of the United States…”, I do believe that congress has the “authority of the United States”. So your whole argument is groundless.

  • ali kimiai

    What a Moron !!! “Logan Act. Specifically, the Logan Act – enacted in 1799 – states:

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States,” Congress is the authority and United States. How wrote this ? How come I do not see the name of the author?