Should Pelosi go to Iran?

[RightinNYC]

Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.

The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''

So what are your thoughts? Should she go to Iran?

 

[Kandahar]

Assuming it doesn't violate any US laws, then yes. It's important to have a dialogue with them. As long as she doesn't offer them anything on behalf of the US government, which she doesn't have the power to do, I would completely support her in talking with Iran.

However, I would hope that she could bypass their idiot president and speak directly with Khamenei or Rafsanjani.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran



So what are your thoughts? Should she go to Iran?

No she's done enough damage already she is not the President and has no right to engage in foreign policy abroad.

"The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” -- John Marshal

In its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the "delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]”

 

[Voidwar]

Iron Clad and Nicely Done TOT

 

[RightinNYC]

Assuming it doesn't violate any US laws, then yes. It's important to have a dialogue with them. As long as she doesn't offer them anything on behalf of the US government, which she doesn't have the power to do, I would completely support her in talking with Iran.

However, I would hope that she could bypass their idiot president and speak directly with Khamenei or Rafsanjani.

The question isn't whether its important or not to have a dialogue, it's whether or not she's the appropriate person to initiate that dialogue.

Considering that foreign policy is outside the purview of Congress, she should either ask Bush to appoint her as an ambassador or give it up.

 

[Kandahar]

The question isn't whether its important or not to have a dialogue, it's whether or not she's the appropriate person to initiate that dialogue.

She isn't. Ideally Bush would appoint an ambassador and Condi Rice would make a trip to Iran. But the appropriate people aren't stepping up.

Considering that foreign policy is outside the purview of Congress, she should either ask Bush to appoint her as an ambassador or give it up.

As a private US citizen, she has the right to meet with pretty much whomever she wants. Like I said, assuming she isn't violating any laws that apply to all US citizens, she is well within her rights to visit whomever she wants.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As a private US citizen, she has the right to meet with pretty much whomever she wants. Like I said, assuming she isn't violating any laws that apply to all US citizens, she is well within her rights to visit whomever she wants.

"The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” -- John Marshal

In its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the "delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]”

 

[Kandahar]

"The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” -- John Marshal

In its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the "delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]”

Ya, well we aren't talking about any breach of laws here (at least I'm not). We're talking about whether or not she should go.

She's only violating laws if I would be violating laws if I did the same thing (and in the case of Iran, that may or may not be the case, I don't know). There's nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS ruling that says she has fewer rights than any other citizen just because she happens to be Speaker of the House.

 

[RightinNYC]

She isn't. Ideally Bush would appoint an ambassador and Condi Rice would make a trip to Iran. But the appropriate people aren't stepping up.

In her and your opinion. Regardless, its not up to either her or you.

As a private US citizen, she has the right to meet with pretty much whomever she wants. Like I said, assuming she isn't violating any laws that apply to all US citizens, she is well within her rights to visit whomever she wants.

No, she doesn't. Because she would be acting in her capacity as a public official, there are things that she is in fact not entitled to do. Conducting foreign policy on the behalf of the US is one such thing.

 

[Kandahar]

No, she doesn't. Because she would be acting in her capacity as a public official, there are things that she is in fact not entitled to do. Conducting foreign policy on the behalf of the US is one such thing.

That would depend on what she does. If she's just talking to Iranian officials and not actually offering them anything, she isn't necessarily acting in her capacity as a public official. Jesse Jackson does that sort of thing all the time, and he holds no office.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ya, well we aren't talking about any breach of laws here (at least I'm not). We're talking about whether or not she should go.

I don't think she should go because she would be breaking the law.

She's only violating laws if I would be violating laws if I did the same thing (and in the case of Iran, that may or may not be the case, I don't know). There's nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS ruling that says she has fewer rights than any other citizen just because she happens to be Speaker of the House.

Again, there are plenty of things that private citizens are entitled to do that members of Congress are not permitted to do. Your claim that they have all the rights of private citizens is not true.

 

[RightinNYC]

That would depend on what she does. If she's just talking to Iranian officials and not actually offering them anything, she isn't necessarily acting in her capacity as a public official. Jesse Jackson does that sort of thing all the time, and he holds no office.

And its because he doesn't hold an office that he can get away with that. When you are a public official going with the stated goal of discussing diplomacy and/or relationships between nations, you run the risk of overstepping your Congressional authority. This case would certainly qualify.

 

[Kandahar]

Again, there are plenty of things that private citizens are entitled to do that members of Congress are not permitted to do. Your claim that they have all the rights of private citizens is not true.

They do unless Congress has passed a law denying themselves certain rights (receiving big-ticket gifts, etc). But there's certainly nothing in the Constitution that denies them the same rights as any other citizen.

If there's some federal law that prohibits congressmen from visiting foreign leaders without the president's permission, then let's see it. But let's dispense with the constitutional bullshit. There's definitely nothing there.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ya, well we aren't talking about any breach of laws here (at least I'm not). We're talking about whether or not she should go.

She's only violating laws if I would be violating laws if I did the same thing (and in the case of Iran, that may or may not be the case, I don't know). There's nothing in the Constitution or the SCOTUS ruling that says she has fewer rights than any other citizen just because she happens to be Speaker of the House.

Umm, the SCOTUS has ruled that this is not the roll of the Congress, so by violating the Separation of Powers as interpreted by the SCOTUS she is violating the highest law of the land IE the Constitution; furthermore, the name of the law she is violating is called the Logan Act.

 

[RightinNYC]

They do unless Congress has passed a law denying themselves certain rights (receiving big-ticket gifts, etc). But there's certainly nothing in the Constitution that denies them the same rights as any other citizen.

If there's some federal law that prohibits congressmen from visiting foreign leaders without the president's permission, then let's see it. But let's dispense with the constitutional bullshit. There's definitely nothing there.

The Logan Act

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

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

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Even more directly, consider the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman, whom the State Dept considered charging under the Logan Act before deciding against it:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.
(So far so good, but lets keep reading.) In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." ....Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

What is this saying? First, it's stating that Congresspeople are free to travel to other countries in pursuance of their legislative duties. Considering that foreign policy is only tangentially within the purview of the Senate and not at all within the purview of the House, that doesn't grant Pelosi the same marginal bit of authority that would be granted to McGovern and Sparkman. Then, it next says that because McGovern and Sparkman received the authorization of the executive and because they made it exceptionally clear that they were only there to listen and learn, not conduct foreign policy negotiations, they were not charged under the Logan Act.

Pelosi is proposing to do just the opposite. If she decides to travel to Iran over the objections of the executive and to comport herself in the same way as she did in Syria, she should be charged under the Logan Act.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They do unless Congress has passed a law denying themselves certain rights (receiving big-ticket gifts, etc). But there's certainly nothing in the Constitution that denies them the same rights as any other citizen.

If there's some federal law that prohibits congressmen from visiting foreign leaders without the president's permission, then let's see it. But let's dispense with the constitutional bullshit. There's definitely nothing there.

A) The SCOTUS has ruled that foreing policy abroad is the exclusive purview of the Executive so she is violating the separation of powers.

B) The name of the Federal Statute she is violating is the logan act:

Illegal Diplomacy
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?[/FONT]

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.


OpinionJournal - Extra

 

[RightinNYC]

A) The SCOTUS has ruled that foreing policy abroad is the exclusive purview of the Executive so she is violating the separation of powers.

B) The name of the Federal Statute she is violating is the logan act:

Yea, there's an even stronger argument to be made that she should be prosecuted under the Logan Act based on the quotes in that article from Albert Gallatin, but that requires a pretty strict originalist reading that I'm not sure everyone would agree with...

 

[Kandahar]

What is this saying? First, it's stating that Congresspeople are free to travel to other countries in pursuance of their legislative duties. Considering that foreign policy is only tangentially within the purview of the Senate and not at all within the purview of the House, that doesn't grant Pelosi the same marginal bit of authority that would be granted to McGovern and Sparkman.

How do you figure? Both houses of Congress need to approve legislation, not just the Senate.

Then, it next says that because McGovern and Sparkman received the authorization of the executive and because they made it exceptionally clear that they were only there to listen and learn, not conduct foreign policy negotiations, they were not charged under the Logan Act.

Can you prove that Pelosi plans to go to Iran to conduct negotiations rather than to listen/learn? This same line was repeated over and over after her Syria trip, yet I haven't seen anyone mention a single thing that she negotiated. If she did, then of course she should cease and desist, as she has no authority to offer anything on behalf of the US government.

Pelosi is proposing to do just the opposite. If she decides to travel to Iran over the objections of the executive and to comport herself in the same way as she did in Syria, she should be charged under the Logan Act.

The authorization of the executive doesn't necessarily mean that the executive has no objections. It isn't generally illegal to travel to Syria, as it was for those other guys to travel to Cuba. I don't believe (although I'm not sure) that it's generally illegal to travel to Iran either.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Can you prove that Pelosi plans to go to Iran to conduct negotiations rather than to listen/learn? This same line was repeated over and over after her Syria trip, yet I haven't seen anyone mention a single thing that she negotiated. If she did, then of course she should cease and desist, as she has no authority to offer anything on behalf of the US government.

It his clear by the following statement that her trip to Syria went well beyond a fact finding mission: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

And then there is the statement of Tom Lantos a member of the Pelosi delegation who said the following: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy." He also said that the meeting was: "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."

It's clear that the Democrats are attempting to engage in the recommendations of the Baker/Hamiliton commission, recommendations which the President clearly does not want pursued.

 

[Kandahar]

It his clear by the following statement that her trip to Syria went well beyond a fact finding mission: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Not really. That sounds like the standard diplomatic line that many politicians use when they return from another country.

You didn't answer, so I'll ask again: What did she negotiate? What was she trying to get, and what did she bring to the table?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not really. That sounds like the standard diplomatic line that many politicians use when they return from another country.

Ya if they were there to negotiate foreign policy not from when they were on a fact finding mission.

You didn't answer, so I'll ask again: What did she negotiate? What was she trying to get, and what did she bring to the table?

It is clear by her comments and those of Tom Lantos that they were in Syria in order to pursue the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission against the wishes of the President.

 

[Kandahar]

Ya if they were there to negotiate foreign policy not from when they were on a fact finding mission.



It is clear by her comments and those of Tom Lantos that they were in Syria in order to pursue the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission against the wishes of the President.

Let's try this one last time:

What did she try to negotiate? What did she want Syria to do, and what did she offer in exchange?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Let's try this one last time:

What did she try to negotiate? What did she want Syria to do, and what did she offer in exchange?

It doesn't matter if she offered Syria anything or not, by simply going there she has negotiated her own foreign policy which differs with that of the President. Furthermore; Lantos has made it clear that this is only the begining they were not there on a fact finding mission they were there as the first step in establishing a secondary foreign policy.

 

[Voidwar]

Let's try this one last time:

He has answered your question more than once.

It's clear that the Democrats are attempting to engage in the recommendations of the Baker/Hamiliton commission, recommendations which the President clearly does not want pursued.

It is clear by her comments and those of Tom Lantos that they were in Syria in order to pursue the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission against the wishes of the President.

Google "Baker/Hamilton commission " and do your own homework.

 

[Kandahar]

This is ridiculous. Just talking to a world leader is not negotiating, nor is it establishing a foreign policy. Jesse Jackson does that kind of thing all the time, and no one ever criticizes him for trying to create his own foreign policy independent of elected officials.