Pelosi broke the law visiting Damascus

[Thorgrim]

Also, a Democratic Speaker did far less than what Pelosi did under Reagan, and it worked wonders:

Speaker Jim Wright, with the quiet support of Republican realists, took an active role in support of the 1987 Central American Peace Accord sponsored by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whose efforts won him the Nobel Peace Prize that year. Despite the Reagan administration's bitter denunciation of the Arias plan, Wright not only endorsed it, he worked actively to bring the Sandinistas together with their opponents to make the plan work. For this he was vilified by Reagan officials, foremost among them Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams, who accused Wright of staging "an unbelievable melodrama," when he met with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. "This was not forward movement," Abrams charged. "This was screwing up the process."

...

In the 1980s, Cheney and Abrams made clear their contempt for Congress and disdain for diplomacy. For them, foreign policy took on the tenor of a moral crusade, making compromise anathema. Despite their best efforts, Congress cut the funding for Reagan's wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, eventually forcing President George H. W. Bush to embrace the peace plans that Reagan's hawks abhorred. The plans worked, and the wars ended on terms that safeguarded U.S. interests. The hardline crusaders like Cheney and Abrams, despite their moral certitude, turned out to be wrong. Twenty years later, they still think diplomacy is for sissies, they still think Congress has no legitimate role in foreign policy, and they are still wrong.


American Prospect Online - ViewWeb

These last three posts: Check and Mate on the Pelosi "situation"

[BigRob]

So because someone else got away with it before means we should let her get away with it now?

Could you imagine the chaos if all laws were treated that way?

It doesn't matter to be if she's a Dem or a Rep, anyone who breaks the law, whatever the law may be, should be punished accordingly.

.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by BigRob

So because someone else got away with it before means we should let her get away with it now?

Could you imagine the chaos if all laws were treated that way?

It doesn't matter to be if she's a Dem or a Rep, anyone who breaks the law, whatever the law may be, should be punished accordingly.

.

Again, she did not go as a diplomatic envoy to Syria.

what part of the law did she break?

In what way did she "defy the will of the United States"

[BigRob]

Ballz already quoted the portion that was broken. I'm confused as to why some of you guys don't understand.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by BigRob

Ballz already quoted the portion that was broken. I'm confused as to why some of you guys don't understand.

because the President's opinion is not the sole will of the United States. I.E. the President is not King and cannot order the Speaker to not go to a country. I'm confused as to why some of you guys don't understand.

[Thorgrim]

Uh how about the part where the president DIDN'T ask her to skip on her Syria visit?

So, not only is it common practice, and it's worked for the US in the past, but the President himself didn't oppose it when Pelosi spoke with him in person

How can you possibly argue anything after confronted with those facts?

Well, I guess you can still argue "well...i hate pelosi! argh!"

[DosEquis]

directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof

Link to video of said intercourse?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

because the President's opinion is not the sole will of the United States. I.E. the President is not King and cannot order the Speaker to not go to a country. I'm confused as to why some of you guys don't understand.

The President represents the will of this country. Why? Because we voted him in the position to do so.

So I disagree with you.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The President represents the will of this country. Why? Because we voted him in the position to do so.

So I disagree with you.

The same logic could be easily applied to the speaker of the house. I get the impression this law was never engineered for this type of application.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The President represents the will of this country. Why? Because we voted him in the position to do so.

So I disagree with you.

funny, because there's also Congress

So I disagree with you.


And considering Bush has a 30% approval and has had it for well over a year kinda invalidates him representing anything other than a lame duck.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The same logic could be easily applied to the speaker of the house.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

funny, because there's also Congress

So I disagree with you.

Wrong, the President represents this country in our international affairs, not Congress.

And considering Bush has a 30% approval and has had it for well over a year kinda invalidates him representing anything other than a lame duck.

That matters not. He still holds the position he was elected to hold, and represents our country to the rest of the world. That's his job, and he holds that authority. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Wrong, the President represents this country in our international affairs, not Congress.

Again, you're not understanding this.

The President has no say in who goes where. In addition, the President does not have the sole responsibility to privilege to visit other nations.

You keep applying two different statements.

The President is responsible for foreign relations, however the President is not "The United States" nor is he the full representation. We have 3 EQUAL branches in government, something many people have forgotten

As such, Pelosi was not engaging in diplomatic relations that would be illegal in any way. She was also not breaking any law nor can she prevented from visiting Syria by a President's decree.

This is something I've stated over and over and yet you still are under the impression that Pelosi can be ordered around by the President. This is not the case.

That matters not. He still holds the position he was elected to hold, and represents our country to the rest of the world. That's his job, and he holds that authority. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

He represents nothing. He is a lame duck and the rest of the world knows that as well.

The Executive is losing credibility day by day as new scandals are uncovered and the horrible diplomatic decisions show results of such.

He is our President, he is currently our Executive, but I'll be damned if anyone ever says he represents me.

[BigRob]

The issue isn't that she went. The issue is she began acting as a broker beween Isreal and Syria. That's what she has admitted to and that's where the law was broken. At that point she acted as a diplomat, which she wasn't.

The law is there for the reason we can't have every elected official going to another country and simply say "I'm an American official, let's make a deal."

The way it is set up constitutionally is that the President appoints a Secretary of State to handle those kind of diplomatic matters on his behalf,even though some Presidents have done it themselves (Woodrow Wilson comes to mind). Constitutionally AFTER the diplomatic matters are settled, the policy goes to Congress to be ratified. Then she can support it or not. She CAN NOT make it herself or change it. If it does not get ratified by Congress then President and SoS must submit a new policy/treaty.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by BigRob

The issue isn't that she went. The issue is she began acting as a broker beween Isreal and Syria. That's what she has admitted to and that's where the law was broken. At that point she acted as a diplomat, which she wasn't.

The law has to do with her acting as an US envoy.

The law is there for the reason we can't have every elected official going to another country and simply say "I'm an American official, let's make a deal."

do not patronize me.

The way it is set up constitutionally is that the President appoints a Secretary of State to handle those kind of diplomatic matters on his behalf,even though some Presidents have done it themselves (Woodrow Wilson comes to mind). Constitutionally AFTER the diplomatic matters are settled, the policy goes to Congress to be ratified. Then she can support it or not. She CAN NOT make it herself or change it. If it does not get ratified by Congress then President and SoS must submit a new policy/treaty.

Again, do not patronize me especially when you obviously did not read my post.

She has not acted as a US envoy, thus has not done anything wrong. Speaking on Israel's behalf is not a US issue.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by BigRob

The issue isn't that she went. The issue is she began acting as a broker beween Isreal and Syria. That's what she has admitted to and that's where the law was broken. At that point she acted as a diplomat, which she wasn't.

The law is there for the reason we can't have every elected official going to another country and simply say "I'm an American official, let's make a deal."

The way it is set up constitutionally is that the President appoints a Secretary of State to handle those kind of diplomatic matters on his behalf,even though some Presidents have done it themselves (Woodrow Wilson comes to mind). Constitutionally AFTER the diplomatic matters are settled, the policy goes to Congress to be ratified. Then she can support it or not. She CAN NOT make it herself or change it. If it does not get ratified by Congress then President and SoS must submit a new policy/treaty.

Wrong:

Ever heard of the Logan Act? If not, you're lucky -- a normal, decent person who hasn't been exposed to oodles of right-wing propaganda. For the record, however, it was passed during the John Adams administration, during the era of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and subjects to criminal sanctions any citizen "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."

Precisely zero individuals have ever been convicted of violating this act. Indeed, for the past 200 years precisely zero individuals have been indicted for violations of the Logan Act. The one indictment in American history occurred in 1803, when the Adams-appointed U.S. Attorney for Kentucky indicted Francis Flournoy after he penned an article in The Frankfort Guardian of Freedom arguing that the western portions of the United States should secede and ally their new nation with France. No trial was held and Flournoy was not prosecuted.

That's the Logan Act. Why am I discussing it? Because, naturally, a small army of wingnuts has swarmed the internet arguing that George W. Bush should have Nancy Pelosi brought up on charges under it due to her trip to Syria

To which I say: Bring it on. The specter of a grossly unpopular president seeking a politically motivated prosecution of a popular opposition party legislative leader for violation of a never-enforced law would be a fantastic spectacle, exposing clearly the current of authoritarianism usually lurking just a bit further beneath the surface of the Bush administration.

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb

[BigRob]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Wrong:

What part of my statement are you saying is wrong?


Prostreet- Since you think she went there with no intention of acting as an envoy, are you saying she chose the middle east as a vacation destination and just happened to bump into their representatives in each country she visited?

[Thorgrim]

Why can't people just be honest, you hate Pelosi and you'll throw anything on her you can...

I've shown how past GOP and Dems have done the same thing
I've shown that Bush didn't even oppose the trip when he talked to her about it
I've shown the law cited is a left-over from the alien&sedition period and is only on the books because people are lazy, its like those old state laws some of us still have that more than 2 women living in one house is considered a brothel...it's antiquated
I've shown a Dem Speaker that actually went against the president (unlike Pelosi) and it ended up helping us diplomatically

I don't know what else you guys want, it seems pretty obvious there is nothing I can do that will get you to stop bitching about Pelosi

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by BigRob

What part of my statement are you saying is wrong?


Prostreet- Since you think she went there with no intention of acting as an envoy, are you saying she chose the middle east as a vacation destination and just happened to bump into their representatives in each country she visited?

let's speculate more!

are you saying she went there to open secret terrorist amnesty treaties?

[imind]

Originally Posted by thorgrim

I've shown how past GOP and Dems have done the same thing
I've shown that Bush didn't even oppose the trip when he talked to her about it
I've shown the law cited is a left-over from the alien&sedition period and is only on the books because people are lazy, its like those old state laws some of us still have that more than 2 women living in one house is considered a brothel...it's antiquated
I've shown a Dem Speaker that actually went against the president (unlike Pelosi) and it ended up helping us diplomatically

end this funking thread, already.

to reiterate the most important detail of this thread. the president (assuming he is the 'authority' spoken of in the law, which is debatable, and is up to nobody here to define without citing something that clearly establishes it, didn't forbid her from going.