Did John Boehner VIOLATE THE LAW By Inviting Netanyahu to Address Congress?

[Segami]

House GOP leader John Boehner (OH) made headlines in multiple countries with the announcement that he had asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress just weeks before the Israeli election. President Obama and Secretary Kerry have already announced they will not meet with him, as it is a breach of diplomatic protocol for an Israeli leader to visit Congress without first talking to the president. But Boehner may have run afoul of more than protocol – he may have also violated the law itself. The Logan Act, passed in 1799 and amended in 1904, states that no citizen of the United States can act on behalf of the United States government without its explicit approval. Boehner, as a Member of Congress, is not authorized to conduct foreign policy dealings that are explicitly the purview of the executive branch.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, 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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

While there have been no prosecutions under this law, the right was insistent that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated in when she went to visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2007.Although Boehner did not make that charge against Pelosi, he did say the only reason she carried out the visit was to “embarrass the president.” If the right thought Pelosi visiting the Syrian president in Syria was a possible violation of the law, how can it justify Boehner explicitly coordinating with a foreign leader to address Congress to change U.S. policy?





cont'

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/did-john-boehner-violate-law-inviting-netanyahu-address-congress

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Keep your head down, you will be attacked here for saying that

[arcane1]

14. Nope. The word "treason" is nowhere to be found in the article.

[easychoice]

2. Anything to put him in prison. We can dream,No?

if he did he'll get away with it.

[Ken Burch]

31. Boehner in prison...would that be "Orange Is The New Orange"? n/t.

[easychoice]

32. Maybe the house of Orange Supermax?

along with a couple hundred of his bestest drinking buddies.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

39. No you CANT if it means defending Obama or attacking the human garbage teaparty con

assholes who have done nothing but attack and disrespect Obama, then NO you cant dream

Obama can be treated with the greatest hate and disrespect imaginable, it seems


(obviously not yelling at you...sorry)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I think Boehner should be prosecuted for this. He violated the law, period. n/t

[elleng]

4. He SHOULD be prosecuted for this.

Foreign policy belongs to the President, and boner + bibi creating a circus IN the halls of congress is counter to that strong policy. Differs, imo, from a member of Congress visiting foreign leaders in their home countries, helping to maintain good relations, one hopes.

[malaise]

5. Fugging enemy of the state

This lawlessness has to stop

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

40. But this is about disrespecting Black man in White house, therefore NO, we wont do

a god damn thing, we will sit back and let him be treated with the greatest level of disrespect and unpatriotic fervor imaginable

[malaise]

41. Yes that is how the birther madness was handled

and the corporate media loved it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

42. The patience the AfAm community shows, fucking amazes me...WOW

[malaise]

44. It's beyond amazing

[sabrina 1]

6. Interesting, especially this part which does seem to apply to this invitation:

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

That last part is exactly what Boehner and Netanyahu are trying to do.

I don't know, but maybe the WH should consult some lawyers about this to see if Boehner needs to be sanctioned.

The President seems to believe that his negotiations with Iran are working and will not need sanctions, even if talks fail initially. They are delicate negotiations and crucial to this country's National Security.

For Boehner to drag the war mongering Netanyahu to Congress to try to destroy those negotiations, SHOULD be against the law. At the very least it is bordering on an attack on this country, not just the President.

[Segami]

8. And they know it's a breach...

"...breach of diplomatic protocol for an Israeli leader to visit Congress without first talking to the president..."

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, that they knew and did it anyway. It is spiteful and I hope the backlash teaches both of them

a lesson about the American people when it comes to ANYONE from a foreign nation having the gall to try to get this country into another disastrous war where it will OUR troops who die and probably way more of them than in Iraq.

Boehner should definitely suffer some consequences for this.

[Telcontar]

7. The hang up is the phrase "without authority if the United States"

Exactly what does that mean? Is the President the only one who is vested with authority? Arguably, the Speaker in his/her own authority is vested with the power to speak for the United States. Probably a can of worms no one wants to open.

[elleng]

18. Vis a vis foreign policy

YES, only the President has such authority.

[onenote]

33. so was the enactment of sanctions against South Africa

over Reagan's veto a criminal act?

I don't think so.
And I bet you don't think so either.

The State Department has made it clear that they recognize that the legislative branch has a role to play with regard to foreign relations;

"The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

Members of Congress of both parties meet with foreign officials all the time. The idea that they never discuss foreign relations or are merely spouting the current president's policies is naive. As a candidate for president, then Senator Barack Obama visited a number of foreign countries and sat down for meetings with foreign leaders. When he discussed Iraq and Afghanistan, he clearly wasn't merely pushing the policies of the Bush administration or was in agreement with his opponent McCain. But it would have been ridiculous to suggest he violated the law in doing that.

I think Boehner's action was obnoxious, rude, an extreme breach of protocol. But it wasn't illegal.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. You are comparing an actual act of Congress to the actions of a single member of Congress.

The Speaker of the House did not override Reagan's veto, the United States Congress did so, as the Constitution requires. That comparison is not a strong one. The Constitution obviously gives powers to the Congress as a body that it does not give to individual members. Congress can declare war, a Congressperson can not for example.

[onenote]

38. See post 37

[Adrahil]

21. The Constitution says....

... the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy. The Congress has no power to do so.

Having said that, nothing will be done here. And it could be argued (probably effectively), that Congress can invite whoever they want to speak.

[lsewpershad]

9. Boycott the sitting.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Listening to a speech

is not conducting foreign policy.

And a breach of protocol, however egregious, is not a criminal act.

Let the warmonger speak, who cares? Congress can invite whomever they choose to speak - they don't the President's permission, any more than he needs their permission to invite whomever he chooses to the White House.

[sabrina 1]

13. Then let Dems invite Khomeini and let the President and Kerry attend this 'joint session' of

Congress. Let Bibi get his rear end kicked when he shows the world that it is HE more than the Iranians who is the one refusing to look for a peaceful solution.

And let them try to squeal about the Dems inviting someone THEY at least do by sticking to the protocol.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. You know, the Iranian official who would hold that role in their goverment is President Hassan

Hassan Rouhani, not Supreme Leader Khomeini, much in the same way that the British Prime Minister attends to such duties instead of the Regent. Supreme Leader is an elected position, but it is the President of Iran that holds diplomatic duties. It is their President who addresses the UN, receives and deploys ambassadors and other diplomats, etc.
So if Democrats wanted to invite a counterpart, Rouhani would be the proper choice in terms of protocol, Iranian laws and would of course be far less fraught with the obvious problems coming with Khomeini's rhetorical bluster and invective.

[unblock]

15. there's more going on here than just a speech. it's never just a speech.

my opinion is that the speech itself isn't a violation of the law.

the much more quiet, behind the scenes discussion on the same trip no doubt do violate the law, but getting a prosecutable case on this would be challenging.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. The paranoia around this place is simply amazing sometimes n/t

[unblock]

20. paranoia? not in the least. this is the way politics is done.

you think any politician from one country who is invited to another country by local politicians ever just gives a speech and then goes home?

not in the least. the invited politician will meet with those local politicians quietly and work on a deal or three.

now, there may or may not be anything particularly controversial in those discussions. if you want to talk paranoia, you can get into the content of those discussions.

but the mere fact that they're going to be discussing something quietly while he's here, other than talking about the speech?

c'mon.

[Chemisse]

25. I'm sure they will discuss issues of common interest.

Like how they can circumvent the authority of the White House.

That is not paranoia. That is the reality of politics in Washington nowadays.

[herding cats]

22. It's not just a speech, even people in favor of new sanctions on Iran understand this is wrong.

The astonishment didn’t stop at Pennsylvania Avenue but moved from there to Capitol Hill. Even Democratic lawmakers who intend to go against the administration and support new sanctions taken aback by the Boehner-Bibi move. “Netanyahu is shooting himself in the foot,” one of them said, “because by turning this into a partisan issue, he may be forcing some Democratic members to choose between Boehner and Obama, which, for them, is no choice at all.” Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, quickly shot down claims coming from both Boehner and Netanyahu that the invitation to address Congress was “bipartisan”. No one consulted with me, Pelosi said, and the invitation is “inappropriate.”

Even the leaders of mainstream Jewish groups who normally and reflexively support Netanyahu were dumbfounded: no one informed them and no one had asked their opinion. “I was literally sick to my stomach when I heard about it,” one of them told me. J-Street criticized the move, of course, but even the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman called on Netanyahu and Boehner to come down from the high tree they had climbed. I support new sanctions, Foxman told Ron Kampeas at JTA, but this is “ill-advised.”

The warnings and protests started pouring into the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, which finally opted to move Netanyahu’s speaking engagement from February 11 to March 3, when it could be linked to the annual AIPAC conference. Of course, if the Prime Minister’s speech had been portrayed from the outset as an outgrowth of his wish to participate at the AIPAC get-together, much of the damage and its resonance could have been avoided. But we have this tendency to try and close the barn doors after the horses have bolted, and to stub a toe or sprain a leg in the process. Accordingly, Israel’s good name was sullied just a little bit more, it became a partisan punching bag and distanced itself further from the Democrats, it wasted far too much of the far too little credit it has left at the White House and it did a disservice to the cause which allegedly motivates Netanyahu in the first place: increasing the pressure on Iran by means of new sanctions legislation.

Everyone seems to agree, by the way, that chances are that such new legislation might indeed lead to a disruption of the nuclear talks with Tehran, as Obama told Congress on Tuesday. In his extraordinary public statement, the head of the Mossad did not deny saying that new sanctions would be like throwing a “hand grenade” into the talks: he just thinks that this will ultimately lead the Iranians to make more concessions. Obama has a more somber scenario in mind: that a breakdown in talks will lead to a confrontation with Iran, perhaps even to open hostilities. The prevention of such a clash is no less important to Obama than curtailing Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.638601

If it were just a "speech" it wouldn't have gained the international attention it has. As Biden would say, "this is a big fucking deal!"

[DeSwiss]

11. Turn the FuckingYahoo's plane back.

- As simple as that. And then arrest Boehner and throw him in the drunk tank.

K&R


He's always drunk.......

[B Calm]

17. Probably wanting our congress to give him more of our tax dollars

in foreign aid. .

[Segami]

19. So, what is to be gained?....

"....Without consulting with the president or the Democrats in Congress, Boehner invited the leader of a foreign power, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress. There is no love lost between Netanyahu and President Obama. Netanyahu will no doubt rip into the president when he speaks on March 3.

That appears to be Boehner's purpose. "There is no other explanation for Boehner's impetuous, insulting and dangerous decision this week to break foreign policy protocol and invite Netanyahu," editorialized the Chicago Sun-Times.

Boehner's move could have been taken straight from the tea-party playbook, based on the view that Barack Obama is not legitimately the leader of the nation. Therefore, the powers given by the Constitution to the president to conduct the foreign policy of the United States can be ignored. The speaker can posture as the alternative commander-in-chief because the man who actually has that responsibility doesn't deserve the title...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/how-boehner-bungled-his-b_b_6534378.html

As Max Fisher notes:

This is not just a breach of protocol: it's a very real problem for American foreign policy.The Supreme Court has codified into law the idea that only the president is allowed to make foreign policy, and not Congress,because if there are two branches of government setting foreign policy then America effectively has two foreign policies.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/3/7146097/zivotofsky-jerusalem-israel-supreme-court-explainer

Fisher warns that the fact that "a US political party is siding with a foreign country over their own president... is extremely unusual and a major break with the way that foreign relations usually work." This is dangerous business that could "lead to chaos" as other nations misread America's true intentions.

[onenote]

28. So when the Democrats pushed through sanctions on South Africa over Reagan's veto

they were usurping Reagan's exclusive powers to make foreign policy?

Don't think so.

And, I bet, neither do you.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. The US Congress has the Constitutional power to override a Presidential veto if they have enough

votes to do so. This is very different from a single Congressperson taking an action on their own. The override of Reagan's veto of South African Sanctions was very strong and entirely bi-partisan, in both Houses more Republicans voted to override the veto than voted against it, vote totals in the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83. House Republicans 81 to 79 for override, Senate Republicans 31 for and 21 against the override.
So 'pushed through' with a massively unified vote by the United States Congress following Constitutional procedures? Odd choice of words.

[onenote]

37. So you agree that Congress has a significant role to play with regard to foreign relations

I say that based on your apparent agreement that it is not unconstitutional for Congress to enact legislation imposing sanctions on a foreign government even if doing so is contrary to how the president's foreign relations' policy objectives and decisions.

That being the case, its pretty clear you must agree that broad statements about the exercise of authority over foreign relations being the sole provence of the executive branch are wrong.

So that leaves the question of what an individual member of Congress can do. Well, for starters, I don't think that the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees are unconstitutional and I don't think its unconstitutional for those committees to exercise oversight authority with regard to a president's foreign policy. In particular, I don't think its unconstitutional for those committees to hold hearings on sanctions proposals or more generally on a president's foreign relations policies. And I don't think its unconstitutional for the chairman of those committees to unilaterally decide who the witnesses are at such hearings (as is typically the case) and, if he or she so desires invite only one witness who presents only the view of those opposed to the president's position (although I think one-sided hearings are a bad idea as a matter of policy). And if a mere committee chair can lawfully decide to invite a witness to appear at a committee meeting to criticize a president's position on a matter of foreign relations, its pretty obvious that the Speaker of the House can lawfully invite someone to appear before the entire Congress to do the same thing. I don't think its a good idea or good policy, but it certainly isn't a usurpation of constitutional authority.

Let's be clear. I think that it was both constitutional and good policy for Congress to solicit views criticizing Reagan's approach to South Africa, to pass a sanctions bill opposed by Reagan, and to override Reagan's veto. I think it is constitutional for Boehner to invite Netanyahu to speak to Congress regarding a matter of foreign policy (even if Netanyahu is opposed to and critical of the president's position on sanctions and Iran) and I think that if Congress enacts sanctions, they will be constitutional (just as the other sanctions that Congress has enacted against Iran for decades are constitutional). I also strongly believe inviting Netanyahu was obnoxious and a breach of protocol; I think that the enactment of sanctions would be a bad policy and hope that if such sanctions pass, the President carries out his veto threat, not based on any constitutional objection, but on the grounds that its bad policy.

[Telcontar]

29. The Speaker is not an alternate CinC

He is, however, one of the coequal top three of the Federal government. Everyone complains about an Imperial Presidency until one of theirs is in the White House.

Breach of protocol, seems like. Seditious or treasonous, not even in the same ball park.

[alfredo]

23. This is a perfect opportunity for the teabaggers in the house to remove him

from the speakership.

[2naSalit]

24. He's also facing a national election two weks later which is also

against protocol. Of course he's coming to try to damage the "talks" but he is also trying to look tough for the elction, trying to show how he can sway the US government to his bidding.

He's evil,and trying to manipulate the foreign policy for his own gains... and trying to start a war. He wants to bomb Iran so bad that if he can't get us to do it, he'll use the weapons we gave him - paid for by we taxpayers - to start it himself. Then when he gets his ass handed to him he'll come crying to us to protect him and Isreal.

He has a history of going up to hornets, ' nests to wack them with a stick and then hiding behind the US when the hornets come after him. He needs to go away and STFU. I hope he loses the election... even the Moussad is against him on this and that's hugh!!

[Chemisse]

26. Exactly!

[onenote]

27. No.

The Logan Act has been on the books for 216 years and there has been exactly one indictment under it. One. Many scholars believe that its unconsitutional.

Beyond that, the idea of a progressive citing the Logan Act is bizarre. Yes, the right has threatened from time to time to bring Logan Act charges against, among others, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Stokely Carmichal, Jim Wright, and Jane Fonda. But they never did. Do you really think its a good idea for Democrats to be the ones that resurrect this dead letter of a law?

Finally, and most importantly, what Boehner did was obnoxious, rude, a breach of protocol. But it wasn't remotely a violation of law. Here's what the Department of State has said about the Logan Act, in connection with a visit by George McGovern and others to meet with Cuban officials in Havana in 1975:

"The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

Inviting a foreign official to give a speech is even less of an intervention in anything than going over to a foreign country and having two-sided discussions with that country's officials. If the latter isn't a Logan Act violation, then having a head of state speak to Congress isn't one either.

[Calista241]

30. Well, i think we see how the next 18 months are going to go.

[tammywammy]

43. The Speaker of the House is the only one that extends invitations to speak before a joint session.

Many heads of state have spoken to joint sessions. If inviting a leader and having them speak was against the law, then there are many who would be guilty.

This was a breach of protocol, but not against the law.