Does any agency in this country give a fuck about the rule of law?

[onecaliberal]

[tritsofme]

1. It's not enforced because it is unconstitutional. No one has been successfully prosecuted under it ever

In over 200 years. It is a dead law.

[Think. Again.]

3. I thought laws had to deemed "unconstitutional" by the supreme court..

...and if the Logan Act has already been challenged and deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court, how is it still on the books?

[markodochartaigh]

12. Just wait until exPresident Biden

accepts a croissant at breakfast from the president of France next summer. The supreme court will rule that The Logan Act is the most sacred part of US jurisprudence.

[tritsofme]

6. As I said, it is a dead law. Why would a prosecutor bring charges under a law that she knows will be ruled

unconstitutional?

[onenote]

7. Unconstitutional laws stay on the books until they're repealed.

You may have noticed that a lot of state abortion laws that were unconstitutional under Roe v Wade were still on the books when Roe was overturned.

That being said, while the Logan Act hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a smart prosecutor isn't going to waste time and resources bringing a case that they feel strongly they can't win.

[Hekate]

11. Same reason state abortion laws have risen from the grave since Dobbs?

Zombie laws…

[TomSlick]

13. The Logan Act will likely never be challenged before SCOTUS.

SCOTUS would only hear a challenge to the Logan Act if someone appealed a conviction.

It is so clearly unconstitutional that no US Attorney would allow a charge to be filed. If one did, a district judge would dismiss the case. The Logan Act will likely remain on "the books" but it is a dead letter.

[Think. Again.]

20. Bingo.

[TomSlick]

21. That would be ethically suspect.

The AG, and all US Attorneys, have taken an oath to support the Constitution. Filing a criminal charge they know to be unconstitutional would violate that oath. No prosecutor should file a criminal charge without a belief that a conviction could be had and upheld on appeal.

[Think. Again.]

23. Why do people keep trying to pretend itcs known to be unconstitutional?

"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures", but did not rule on the question."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Constitutionality

[TomSlick]

26. There is a factual basis for a charge under the Logan Act.

What is missing is a good argument the Logan Act is constitutional.

[TomSlick]

29. I agree there is a factual basis, just not a sound legal one.

I do not hold myself out as a constitutional scholar but the issues with the Logan Act seem clear to me.

[TomSlick]

36. I've been wrong before.

I suspect the discussion is academic. I don't expect any prosecutor to bring a charge.

[Think. Again.]

22. It is certainly NOT "clearly unconstitutional"..

"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures", but did not rule on the question."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Constitutionality

[TomSlick]

25. The "clearly unconstitutional" comment was clearly just my opinion.

I cannot muster an argument for why the Logan Act is constitutional.

[Think. Again.]

28. Can you muster an agrument as to why it wouldn't be?

[TwilightZone]

5. A court noted in passing in 1964 that it was probably unconstitional, but didn't issue a ruling.

It has not, to my knowledge, been ruled unconstitutional in an official capacity. That doesn't make it any more valid or applicable, of course. It's seemingly unworkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Constitutionality

[Think. Again.]

8. Ah, Thank You!

So the Logan Act hasn't been deemed unconstitutional and could be used against trump!

Of course, he will challenge any case at all ever brought against him, and the current supreme court will continue to most likely side with him and not constitutionality, but if we keep letting rightwingers talk us out of doing what we should do, then we might as well just quit.

From your link above:

"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures", but did not rule on the question."

Sounds like it's worth a shot, considering the severity of his purpose in breaking the Logan Act.

[H2O Man]

16. It hasn't.

However, as noted above, there are issues with the wording. Perhaps more important is defining what "negotiating" with a foreign government covers and does not cover. There is a lot of gray area in between those two.

I think that there are other areas for prosecuting the felon that offer a much greater chance of success. And the DOJ does not prosecute cases where it is deemed there is less than a 95% chance of a conviction that will be upheld on appeal.

[Blue Owl]

2. K&R

[D_Master81]

9. This is what happens

When Trump cries persecution for years now I honestly think unless he is caught on camera committing a felony he will walk on anything. It’s like they’re scared of being called names or something. If you don’t enforce the laws, you don’t have laws.

[onecaliberal]

10. At some point trying to hold little guys accountable with said laws, will become untenable

Laws are only for the poors.

[angrychair]

18. Nope

TSF has carte blanche to, very literally, do and say anything he wants completely free of any repercussions.
Honestly, he didn't need immunity. He didn't. Anyone who thinks he will be held accountable for anything they are kidding themselves.
Still remains to be seen but he is more likely than not to get out of everything on appeal.

[slightlv]

19. Unconstitutional or not,

we were reminded of it and other rules and regs in the DoD each new year. Violations of it and the Hatch Act meant being fired. Why should we low men on their totem pole have to pay the price and the big wigs get off scott free? Once again, you see a two tiered justice system; the best money can buy! /argh!

[birdographer]

30. Oh, she clearly misunderstands

Donny is a Very Special Boy and is far, far above the law. He can do whatever he wants and there will be no consequences.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

31. I have an idea

How about aiding and abetting an enemy during an armed conflict with an ally?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

32. The general consensus in the legal world

Is the Logan Act is unconstitutional and trying to get a conviction with its legal vagueness is doomed to fail. So no prosecutor is going to bother. That's why it's barely been used in it's entire history of being on the books.

[WarGamer]

33. The Logan Act... which is probably toothless doesn't cover any of that.

It's meant to address NEGOTIATING DISPUTES.

For example...

If Trump offered to dismantle 1000 nuclear warheads with the Chinese... from Mar a Lago in exchange for 500 US warheads...

That would be negotiating without authority...

[republianmushroom]

34. The Logan act is/was a feel good law.