So what is the Logan act?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

The Repubscum have several problems... the USA sanctions had no affect on IRAN! We have not traded with them since 1980, except for Reagan selling them weapons! Halliburton openly violated sanctions via its foreign subsides..

Just looking like clowns was not enough for them and now they are 47 criminals!

When these clowns try to talk about the constitution no one should take them seriously again.

...about the 47 Republicans who signed the letter and described them in bold front-page letters as TRAITORS.  

The Daily News is owned by Morton Zuckerman, a strong supporter of Israel.  If Zuckerman thought the GOP letter was helpful to Israel, he would not have allowed an editorial blasting the letter.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

-- Modified on 3/10/2015 8:37:35 AM

They already proved they don't know the laws or care about the Constitution.

When you break the law you should pay a price!

 

and, in that capacity -and under the First Amendment - are privileged to advise Iran as their view of the law on executive agreements. Any attempt to criminalize that conduct under the Logan Act – which applies to acts by “private citizens” – would almost certainly be unconstitutional.  So I don’t think they broke the law.

          Of more concern is their own lack of understanding of the law and the consequences of either Congress, or a future president, breaching a sole executive agreement negotiated by Mr. Obama. An executive agreement is an international contract and normally is enforceable as such against the United States. A future president or Congress can always choose to BREACH that agreement, but this notion that the agreement is not binding on the United State as an international agreement  at midnight on Mr. Obama’s last day is simply wrong.

       If the next president or Congress breaches Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran, two things will happen. First,  the international coalition that imposes sanction with the US will fall apart, and Iran will get substantial relief from sanctions this way. Two, future states will be unwilling to enter into agreements with the president if Congress is not willing to honor agreements he makes.  So like Benji, who thinks things will somehow be better if the agreement is not made, they have not thought through the consequences of their actions

When House Speaker and Democrat Nancy Pelosi actually traveled to Syria in 2007 in an attempt to strike her own peace deal in opposition to President Bush's efforts at the time.

When Democrat House of Representatives David Bonior (Minority Whip at the time) and Jim McDermott flew to Iraq in 2002 to be used as human shields and propagandize against the bipartisan run up to the Iraq war.

Maybe they'll tell you how those situations were completely different.

Now we look so F'up and disfuctional. At this stage Obama should cut the deal, get China and Russia on board and sign an EO to get it done for his final two years....Its a F you to the 47 repub, and to Netanyahu...

Littlegirlieboy30 is Flying Bravo.......again

 
Thank you

That would have help Isreal.And the Bush admistration wasn't talking to Assad and was mostly likely itching to start another war. The dialog may have help as we didn't get into another Bush Cheney war, ahhh shucks! Now these 47 goofballs are trying to flex what little muscle they think they have. Good thing the Iranians see this as BS from a group of knuckleheads.

END OF MESSAGE

And don't bring up shit that happpen years ago, talk in the present.

END OF MESSAGE

and offers to help Soviets 'get their message' out in US if Soviets will help Dems take on Reagan....patriotic, huh???

At least in Speaker Pelosi's case, IT WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, at least when analyzed from a motivational standpoint. It was OK for her to interfere in foreign relations because she only wanted to stop a war, she wanted to stop BAD things from happening. Thanks to Mr. Happy Go Lucky we now know that it's OK to interfere as long as your motivation is good.

But wait, the 47 Republican Senators claim to have as their motivation the desire to keep Iran from obtaining nukes lest they annihilate Israel or U.S. some day. So I guess it's OK to interfere only when the motivation is something with which he agrees.

I wonder if he's OK with any Democrat bank robbers that only do it to keep their kids from starving

Yep! Those were the words of little ditty they sang on Sesame Street while teaching kids how to discriminate; see the difference in objects. You definitely didn't get this one right. Not even close!  

Bad could have happened in Syria, but we'll never know what the out come would have been. These 47 dicks have no ideal what was going on with the negotiation. They think they know, but they don't know shit..so why not let this play out instead of grandstandng for their base. These 47 are playing into the worse base of Iranians, and that makes them no better.
And this last line, "I wonder if he's OK with any Democrat bank robbers that only do it to keep their kids from starving." I don't know WTF that means

END OF MESSAGE

what Pelosi did has no resemblance of what the 47 Republican's did. Whether they did anything illegal, I'll let Mari weight in on that!  

I asked why Pelosi etal. weren't in jail. I never claimed they should be. Both groups are protected by the First Amendment.

And you're stooping to HuffPo for your "facts". Rather than laugh you off the page I'll just see you with one WSJ opinion piece. Really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB11758233098056177

In my response to you, and in your post i responded to, neither of us mentioned anything about anyone going to jail. So, who is it who has the reading comprehension problem?

Yes, the commentary is from Huffpo. That doesn't disqualify the author's points. Which points do you contest? If the author is indeed stating the facts, then any reasonable person, who is not dodging the issue, nor straining at gnats, can see the difference between the two situations.

So these Knuckle heads got a serious hard on after the visit by Netanyahu and they drove the bus they'r on off the cliff...and now some are saying "Where's your sense of humor"....And this is from the party of crazy and is divided.

I'm sure content was just as loony as the WSJ opinion I quoted. I thought you knew I done playing your version of whack a mole discussion.

If you did, you'd learn something. But, we wouldn't want you to leave that echo-chamber you're in, would we?  

P.S. It's still not too late to read it! lol

There's good argument that our trustworthiness and respectability, in issues of foreign policy, will take a major hit. But, they're not worried. They'll just blame it on Obama. First the debt ceiling fiasco with the downgrading of our nations credit rating, now this. So, it doesn't really matter if a democrat or republican is elected president next time. He or she will have to try and dig us out of this whole, like Obama had to try and dig us out of the hole Bush dug for us.

is that your ability to explain and communicate is inversely proportional to your posting frequency.

The only thing worth dodging is you.

You know I was talking about learning something from the article, not me!  

It seems obvious you don't want to leave your echo chamber, and have an honest discussion. The author of the article points out quite clearly how Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is quite different than the act of sending the letter the 47 Republicans sent. Ignorance or denial is no defense on your part!  

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

that you would waste so much time and effort engaging someone who you belived had so little intellectual character.

A does not equal B. In this equation there is no rule or reasoning that would apply to say A does equal B.

A=My view of myself or thoughts about my self worth.

B=Any attempts I've made to have a reasonably honest dialog with you.

In other words; you are making it all up in you head, and pulling it out your ass!  ;

The lie that you can be honest (or even reasonably honest) regarding your attempted dialog.  

Although your confession that your level of honesty must be qualified might show promise for the future. I have my doubts.

-- Modified on 3/13/2015 8:31:18 PM