Saturday's Wall Street Journal noted that the Democrats' famous 100th day of House rule will occur this week. The editorial writer at the Journal graciously thinks it is,
"too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish...."
Given 'victories' like cutting off funds for the Iraq war, including much of the pork that the Democrats promised to reject, refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, and raising the minimum wage for workers, except those employed by companies in Frisco Nan's own district, it's unclear how these will play in Nan's colleagues districts some 20 18 months from now.
As the Journal article notes, much of what is being passed will be vetoed by Bush, assuming it even gets through a Senate reconciliation process. And as it concludes,
"If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi."
Just so. But, fortunately, the Dems are too set in their ways to change their behaviors now. Despite recruiting many centrist freshmen candidates, many of whom won, the House Democrats ran and seek to govern from anger, retribution, and righteous indignation. Although possessing paper-thin margins in both houses of Congress, Reid and Frisco Nan simply cannot contain their partisan zeal for persecuting, and attempting to prosecute, President Bush and his cabinet for political differences.
The upshot of this crusading attitude will likely be a continuing strain on Nan's ability to resolve her continuing dilemma- satisfy her liberal base, to whom she owes her Speakership, or satisfy the broad centrist group of newly-elected and veteran moderate party members in the House. She cannot do both.
In the past, the first group has cut off its nose to spite its face, rejecting electability in favor of extremism. The second group probably would like to return to Washington in 2009 and, therefore, may exert a pressure as yet unseen by Nan to 'do the right thing' for the country, no matter if it does not demonize Bush or the Republicans.
Personally, given how little, as usual, has been signed into law by now, I'm betting this auspicious 'first 100 days' will be, and will want to be forgotten by the Liberal Democratic House leadership, by year's end.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Frisco Nan's Criminal Diplomacy
Friday's Wall Street Journal carried an editorial by Robert Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, 1984-85.
He wrote, in part, of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria,
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.... The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war . . . ." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."
I can't really think of much more to add to this excellent piece. It's clearer to me now why nearly every Congressional trip, a/k/a junket, is billed as a "fact finding" mission. To do more would violate the Logan Act.
So Frisco Nan has explicitly and publicly flaunted our nation's laws. A fine record she is building, indeed, as the first Democratic Speaker since the disgraced Jim Wright, and the first female Speaker of any party.
Personally, I favor Alberto Gonzales prosecuting her immediately, on Bush's behalf. This would accomplish two important things.
First, it would throw Nan and her party off balance, as she had to prepare to contest a felony charge for her politically ill-advised and clearly illegal act.
Second, it would pre-empt the Congressional witch hunts we all know are coming, now that Reid and Pelosi have subpoena power for the next 21 months.
Bi-partisanship is what Democrats tout when they are in the minority. When they gain the upper hand, it becomes lost in the shuffle. This time is no different. The Republic has actually seen precious little of bi-partisanship, because politics is about power. And sharing or hesitating to use it frequently results in the loss of it.
As a second-term President, does Bush lose anything by prosecuting Nan? I don't think so. Certainly, the nation gains by serving notice on Congress that felony behavior will not be tolerated in positions of "leadership."
He wrote, in part, of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria,
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.... The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war . . . ." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."
I can't really think of much more to add to this excellent piece. It's clearer to me now why nearly every Congressional trip, a/k/a junket, is billed as a "fact finding" mission. To do more would violate the Logan Act.
So Frisco Nan has explicitly and publicly flaunted our nation's laws. A fine record she is building, indeed, as the first Democratic Speaker since the disgraced Jim Wright, and the first female Speaker of any party.
Personally, I favor Alberto Gonzales prosecuting her immediately, on Bush's behalf. This would accomplish two important things.
First, it would throw Nan and her party off balance, as she had to prepare to contest a felony charge for her politically ill-advised and clearly illegal act.
Second, it would pre-empt the Congressional witch hunts we all know are coming, now that Reid and Pelosi have subpoena power for the next 21 months.
Bi-partisanship is what Democrats tout when they are in the minority. When they gain the upper hand, it becomes lost in the shuffle. This time is no different. The Republic has actually seen precious little of bi-partisanship, because politics is about power. And sharing or hesitating to use it frequently results in the loss of it.
As a second-term President, does Bush lose anything by prosecuting Nan? I don't think so. Certainly, the nation gains by serving notice on Congress that felony behavior will not be tolerated in positions of "leadership."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
