|
|
 |
|
#21
03-28-2015, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You obviously need a refresher course on the Logan Act. This is from CNN: As constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck of American University said, "Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said. And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable. You (and the rest of the hysterical left) bring up an obscure law that hasn't been used since 1803 and then you accuse me of a smokescreen. Ok, whatever you say. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politi...ter-logan-act/ With regard to the difference of sending a letter to Iran as compared to sending the letter to the President, yes it is technically different but the result is the same. Either way the Iranian understand that the President cannot really do this unilaterally as he wants to. If he does it unilaterally, congress may refuse to lift the sanctions. In addition, the next administration can undo the order. Explain to me how the result is any different under the two scenarios (sending the letter directly to the Iranians versus publicly sending it to Obama). Either way the Iranians learn that the deal can basically be revoked. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 03-28-2015 at 03:33 PM. 
|
Yes there is a huge difference and you know that. Your long winded steaming horseshit pontification Is just that. A steaming pile of rationalizing dung. Let me steam up a window and draw you a picture. Sending a letter to a foreign leader while in a position unauthorized to do so is a violation of the Logan act. Sending a letter to the president whether it be 47 or 4700 people is not a violation of the Logan Act. Quite simple. Nonsense is just about every thing you post.
Threaded Mode