Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

[mauser]

From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page.
Take it for what it's worth:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

__________________________________________________ ______

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

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.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This Web Site and the Content may be used only for your personal and non-commercial use and may not be edited or modified for any purpose. You agree to include the phrase "Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc." when you display or otherwise use the Content.

[Archiver]

As much as I dislike Pelosi...nope. If it were enforceable Jane Fonda would have been rotting in some prison... if not hanged!

First we are not at war with Syria. Had she say visited with a declared enemy like Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the war...then possibly.

Second, the Law was ramroded through much as the "Alien and Sedition act" by Predisident Adams and his cronies who may have been the closest Administration to Fascism we've ever had in the USA. Fortunately, Adams was defeated by Jefferson in part no doubt to his lack of respect of the US Constitution....

http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlienNSe.html

Most controversial, however, was the Sedition Act, devised to silence Republican criticism of the Federalists. Its broad proscription of spoken or written criticism of the government, the Congress, or the President virtually nullified the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. Prominent Jeffersonians, most of them journalists, such as John Daly Burk, James T. Callender, Thomas Cooper, William Duane (1760–1835), and Matthew Lyon were tried, and some were convicted, in sedition proceedings. The Alien and Sedition Acts provoked the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and did much to unify the Republican party and to foster Republican victory in the election of 1800.

[kimbercdp]

Yes, I think she did. If she was a republican, she would being brought up on treason charges. But, being a Dim, nothing will happen to her. To bad the republicans don't have any backbone for this.

[sams819]

she did commit a felony, but like you stated, she will get away with it as the press will not hold her to the carpet. same as jim web, and the felony he and his aid commited in washington dc with the (outlawed) firearm, the same as william jefferson from new orleans who had the bribe money in his refrigerator, the same as sandy burger and the stolen files from the national archives and so on and so on.

[Emptymag]

Originally Posted by sams819

she did commit a felony, but like you stated, she will get away with it as the press will not hold her to the carpet. same as jim web, and the felony he and his aid commited in washington dc with the (outlawed) firearm, the same as william jefferson from new orleans who had the bribe money in his refrigerator, the same as sandy burger and the stolen files from the national archives and so on and so on.

Hmmmmm... when I saw you selling off all those Glocks, I thought you had lost your mind and now I see that was not the case!

[sams819]

LOST MY MIND, MAYBE, BUT NOT MY DIRECTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG. PELOSI IS A WASHED UP MISS AMERICA LEFTOVER, WHO NOW THINKS SHE CAN DICTATE HER SAN FRANSICO POLICY AS NATIONAL POLICY. GOT MORE GLOCKS THAN I CAN CARRY, AND AM THINKING OF A SECOND BUSHMASTER. MAYBE WITH A 20" BARREL. NEED SOMETHING WITH A LITTLE MORE DISTANCE.

[cas]

Why are you even concerned with this when we live under a Dictatorship now?
HR 6166, The Patriot Act , Emergency Powers act of 1933 are in the books as Fiat laws people obey and serve. These are just a few of the FIAT laws making this a Dictatorship . Knowledge is power my brothers
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

[crazyyankee]

Originally Posted by cas

Why are you even concerned with this when we live under a Dictatorship now?
HR 6166, The Patriot Act , Emergency Powers act of 1933 are in the books as Fiat laws people obey and serve. These are just a few of the FIAT laws making this a Dictatorship . Knowledge is power my brothers
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

While you are correct, you are also wrong.
Yes if you consider the legalities of what you are saying, then yes we are under a Dictatorship and have been since the Civil War in one form or another.
Where you are wrong is The People are the ones that make up this great nation and they believe they are still living under the Constitution. That is all that is needed. The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper, it is the belief in it that holds the power. When the Government blatantly oversteps its bounds The People will stop it or we will have another Revolution. I do understand that there are and always will be a bunch of sheeple in this country, but there are those that still believe in the Constitution and will continue to defend it no matter who tries to stop us. Sure it may mean that they have to go "underground", but they will always be here. If and/or when the next Revolution happens you will be surprized who and how many people come out of the wood work. Just my humble opinion.

[tourrider]

Yes. Direct violation of the Logan Act.

[crazyyankee]

As other have said it is a violation of the Logan Act, but because she is a Demoncrat she will get away with it. The history of this has been shown. They (all politicians) think they are above the law, but it is just more blatant with the Demoncrats then it is with the Repukelicans. I trust no career politician and wish they would outlaw career politicians. IMHO