Should We Charge 47 Senators With a Violation of the Logan Act? No.

Sen. Tom Cotton

This trend of me defending people I find reprehensible is unsettling.  If I wanted to defend scumbags, I would have gone to law school.  I'm writing about the petition circulating right now asking that the justice department pursue charges against the 47 Senators who wrote a letter to Iranian leadership saying that any deal reached wouldn't be upheld after President Obama leaves office. The petition reads:

On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
At a time when the United States government is attempting to reach a potential nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, 47 Senators saw fit to instead issue a condescending letter to the Iranian government stating that any agreement brokered by our President would not be upheld once the president leaves office.
This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason.

Don't get me wrong, this letter is unbelievably stupid, but so is charging elected representatives with a 216-year-old law, under which no person has ever been prosecuted before, and is likely unconstitutional.  Charges won't be pursued, shouldn't be pursued, would be ruled unconstitutional if they were pursued, and if by some act of god charges were pursued, think about the precedent that would set.  The Republicans are useless and not acting in America's interest, but I don't want a dictatorship either, which is exactly where this would ultimately lead.

Here is the Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Talk about vaguely worded laws.  It seems to me that although the Constitution designates the President as the head of state and the sole organ of external relations it is clear that you have a right to freedom of expression.

Put the shoe on the other foot.  As stated by Robert Farley on his Foreign Entanglements podcast over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money:  What if the Democrats had invited French President Jacques Chirac over to congress to oppose the Iraq War?  Would it be worth it if it prevented the Iraq War?  He comes to the same conclusion I do:  Yes.

We don't need to charge people with 216-year-old laws; we need to stop electing morons.