Something called the Logan Act? He couldn't even be bothered to find out what it was before he brought it up?

It might interest the pundits, that, for the most part, Pelosi in Syria elicits nothing more than a collective yawn from most of the country. She's simply doing what BushCo will not or can not do -- diplomacy.

As for using the words "irresponsible" and "incompetent" in regards to Democrats... Congratulations Matt, you've summed up the news media AND the current administration perfectly with that description. Project much?

Anyway, thanks so much for your concern. I hope the Dems take it under advisement and that they give it the weight it deserves:

But as Speaker himself in May of 1998, Gingrich aggressively inserted himself into American foreign policymaking abroad when he took a high-powered Congressional delegation to Israel. He openly denounced the White House's Middle East policies and made public comments in direct defiance of the White House. Right before his trip he even described then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as an "agent for the Palestinians."

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers . . . [snip] The Congress shall have Power . . . [snip] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations . . . [snip] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Seems as if some of the law scholars on this website could "parse" the phrases, but the term "citizen" in the Logan Act (as commented by Ding 7777) doesn't apply to Hastert in the past or Pelosi in the present.  Those members of congress are "sworn officers" of the United States with considerable powers of its authority.

Lantos heads a committee with direct oversight responsibility for the issues discussed.  This is the primary reason for the Bu$h xliii hissy fit.  The loyal opposition does have authority to fashion an alternative foreign policy.  And it seems as if Bu$hInc partially perceives how this will play out during an investigation.

And how anyone on the Right can still be defending the worst president in the history of the country, well, it's simply sad, pathetic, and a terrible waste of ostensibly sentient flesh.  And a slap in the face of freedom.  Sorry, but when the republic is being tarnished and toileted by an inept, undeserving, corrupt, and just plain butt-dumb chief executive, it's the duty of the people to make all the noise they can.

the constitution authorizes the president, with the advice and consent of congress, to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, period. congress is not precluded from, and often does, set about it's own "fact finding" missions. nor, are they precluded from meeting with foreign leaders. i challenge you to prove otherwise.

time's up!

that matt lauer and his media cohort are idiots doesn't change the constitution. since speaker pelosi and her delegation weren't "negotiating" a treaty with a foreign country, they can hardly be accused of stepping on presidential prerogative.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know if they have. Typically what they do in these sorts of meetings, there's a cable that is generated that's sent back here to Washington and typically the congressional delegation has a chance to --

QUESTION: I look for that in my e-mail, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. We'll forward it to you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. Look for it on the classified system, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Sean, House Speaker Pelosi has delivered a message from Israel to President Assad saying that Israel is ready for peace with Syria and President Assad has answered that he's ready for peace, too. Do you think it's time for --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think they -- if you check with the Israeli Government, they will tell you that there's been no change in policy, that Prime Minister Olmert and Speaker Pelosi had the discussion about the current situation, but there's been no change in Israeli policy with respect to Syria and peace negotiations.

QUESTION: And what about the message?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that there was a message.

QUESTION: She said that she delivered this message.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll refer you over to the Israeli Government as to whether or not there was any message passed.

QUESTION: Yeah. Excuse me, a follow-up on this.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Syrian Foreign Minister has described Pelosi's visit to Syria and said that it was excellent and historical visit. And Syria will keep in touch with the Congress through the Syrian Ambassador in Washington. Do you have any comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've made our views known on Speaker Pelosi's visit as well as visit of other congressional delegations to Damascus. They are the Legislative Branch of government and certainly they do have a number of different foreign contacts. The Administration is responsible for the execution of foreign policy on behalf of the American people, but there are these foreign contacts which in many cases we do encourage. In this case, we didn't. As for any continuing contacts between any member of the Legislative Branch and the Syrian Ambassador, that's going to be up to them.

QUESTION: Yeah, still on this, Sean. The visit engendered very strong words from the President yesterday. What do you make of this visit? Do you think it's circumventing current U.S. foreign policy? Do you refute it completely this visit? Do you -- what do you think of it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, we've made it clear that we thought the visit was ill-timed. And we have said that to a number of congressional delegations that either had intentions of traveling there or did travel there. We just didn't think it was the right time for a lot of different reasons, which we have explained. They essentially use these kinds of high-level visits as a way to drive the perception that Syria has no problems with any of its neighbors or countries in the international system. The Brits have gone there, the Spanish have gone there, other delegations have gone there and every single time it's the same pattern. They try to use it to say: "Look, no problem here." No problem with the fact that we're supporting rejectionist groups in the Palestinian areas or seeking to destabilize Lebanon or Iraq. And we think that those kinds of high-level visits just send the wrong message.

QUESTION: You're saying you've offered this similar -- discouraging -- advice discouraging visits to people from other governments?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, to other congressional delegations.

QUESTION: I know, but you jut said that -- I just want to make sure you -- the State Department hasn't gone to the Brits or the EU and said, we don't think you -- you shouldn't go. This is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, those are their decisions. Obviously --

QUESTION: But have you made the same recommendations --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- we offer -- obviously, we offer them counsel, but that's not something that I'm going to share in public. We offer that counsel in private.

QUESTION: Sean, how did the process work, though? Did she approach you for advice or did you -- as soon as you heard about the visit, you directly told her that she shouldn't be going? How does it work?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you exactly how this -- how it works. There were some staff- level contacts. Typically when congressional delegations do make plans for a visit, they do have to work with the Administration in terms of arranging the logistics and, you know, mundane things like getting country clearance from the embassy. So there is a necessary level of work that needs to be done before any foreign travel by official visitors from the government, whether that's in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch. I can't tell you exactly when those contacts were initiated. But of course, when we learned of the intentions of a visit, we huddled, thought about whether or not that it was in fact a good idea, whether or not this -- our position had changed from previous such proposed visits, and at that point we initiated staff-level contacts.

And when it became clear that Speaker Pelosi intended to move forward with her visit, then we offered up the briefing about where we stand in our policy vis-à-vis Syria and how we saw events in the region. Jim Jeffrey, our number two guy in the Near East Bureau, Middle East bureau, went up to Capitol Hill and I think he was actually briefing Speaker Pelosi herself as well as other members of the delegation and their staffs.

QUESTION: You said that --

QUESTION: Jim Jeffrey was going to ask Pelosi to deliver a tough message to --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's our advice. That was our advice.

QUESTION: From all reports, it doesn't seem like she's delivered it.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let her speak for herself as to what she conveyed to President Assad. But that is our advice: If you intend to go forward with this visit and you're determined to do so, deliver a tough message to Syria about the need for them to change their behavior.

QUESTION: Actually, Speaker Pelosi did in her message strongly urge Syria not to allow fighters to cross over into Iraq. She also delivered a strong message on Hamas and Hezbollah. Do you think somehow that message will be lost with all the hoopla over her visit or do you think that that was still an important message that she delivered?

MR. MCCORMACK: If the question is whether or not the trip was worth delivering that message in person, I guess our assessment is no. You know, again, you can -- it's important if you make the threshold decision that you deliver that tough message, but the use that the Syrian Government makes of such high-level visits we think is -- far outweighs any potential benefit one might derive from delivering such a message in person.

They full well understand what it is that they need to do. We ourselves in the Executive Branch have delivered that message previously with Deputy Secretary Armitage, who many of you -- former Deputy Secretary Armitage, who many of you know and is a plainspoken fellow -- direct, shall we say. So if they didn't get the message from him about how they need to change their behavior, I don't know who else is going to be able to convey it more succinctly and directly.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, are you -- do you know of any congressional delegations who might have been dissuade by -- dissuaded by the --
MR. MCCORMACK: Anybody who canceled their trips?

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't have a full list of them. But there have been several. Senator Nelson went, along with Senator Specter. Senator Kerry went. So, yeah, there have been a number of them and we have tried to dissuade all of them from going.

Joel, what are you doing way back there?

QUESTION: I'm back here. Question. Conversely, do you think that -- and you just mentioned North Korea with Bill Richardson's trip.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Conversely, do you think that there were perhaps an invite directly to Speaker Pelosi because she knew it would annoy your particular tactics and your thoughts regarding the regime? Of course, you had John Bolton at the UN for two years, very outspoken.

MR. MCCORMACK: You'll have to ask Speaker Pelosi or her staff about her motivations in taking the trip to Syria, Joel.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SOURCE: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/apr/82632.htm

_________________
Duties and responsibilities of the State Department

The Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress have constitutional responsibilities for U.S. foreign policy. Within the Executive Branch, the Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, and its head, the Secretary of State, is the President's principal foreign policy advisor, though other officials or individuals may have more influence on his foreign policy decisions. The Department advances U.S. objectives and interests in the world through its primary role in developing and implementing the President's foreign policy. The Department also supports the foreign affairs activities of other U.S. Government entities including the United States Department of Commerce and the U.S. Agency for International Development. It also provides an array of important services to U.S. citizens and to foreigners seeking to visit or immigrate to the U.S.

All foreign affairs activities - U.S. representation abroad, foreign assistance programs, countering international crime, foreign military training programs, the services the Department provides, and more - are paid for by the foreign affairs budget, which represents little more than 1% of the total federal budget, or about 12 cents a day for each American citizen. As stated by the Department of State, its purpose includes:

Protecting and assisting U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;
Assisting U.S. businesses in the international marketplace;
Coordinating and providing support for international activities of other U.S. agencies (local, state, or federal government), official visits overseas and at home, and other diplomatic efforts.
Keeping the public informed about U.S. foreign policy and relations with other countries and providing feedback from the public to administration officials.
Provides automobile registration for non-diplomatic staff vehicles and the vehicles of diplomats of foreign countries having diplomatic immunity in the United States.

The Department of State conducts these activities with a civilian workforce. The Foreign Service system, which is part of the Excepted Service, is mostly used for positions requiring service abroad. Overseas, members of the Diplomatic Service, including officers, specialists, and at times Civil Service personnel serving overseas when career Foreign Service employees are unavailable to fill certain positions, represent America abroad; analyze and report on political, economic, and social trends in the host country; adjudicate visas; and respond to the needs of American citizens abroad. The U.S. maintains diplomatic relations with about 180 countries and also maintains relations with many international organizations, adding up to a total of more than 250 posts around the world. In the United States, about 5,000 professional, technical, and administrative domestic employees work alongside members of the Foreign Service compiling and analyzing reports from overseas, providing logistical support to posts, communicating with the American public, formulating and overseeing the budget, issuing passports and travel warnings, and more. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Department of State works in close coordination with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense. As required by the principle of checks and balances, the Department also consults with Congress about foreign policy initiatives and policies.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State

--------------------------------------------------
Ok, before you say it PPJ let me attempt to read your mind. You're probably going to say that last section was from an obviously left leaning biased web site Wikipedia. So I went to http://www.conservapedia.com/ however, the "conservative encyclopedia you can trust" didn't have anything about the State Department. Hell, they didn't have much about anything for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about Speaker Pelosi's visit?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Has she -- is she -- and the political delegation -- are they carrying any messages from the State Department to -- on her trip to the Middle East and especially to the Syrian leadership?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. No, no messages in the sense that this was a trip that was encouraged by the Executive Branch of the government. But we did -- once Speaker Pelosi had made the decision that she was going to be going to Syria, we did sit down and had a briefing with her. We explained where we were in our policy vis-à-vis Syria and we encouraged Speaker Pelosi, as we have with other congressional delegations that have gone to Syria, to send a tough message to the Syrian Government that they need to change their behavior, that their behavior on a variety of different fronts in the Middle East is completely unacceptable and 180 degrees off from where we hope the rest of the region is going to be headed.

So that is what we would encourage her to say when she meets with Syrian officials. What message at the end of the day she decides to convey to the Syrian officials, of course, is going to be up to her.

QUESTION: Can you tell us who briefed Speaker Pelosi?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it was Jim Jeffrey. He's our -- the Principal Deputy in our Near Eastern Bureau.

QUESTION: Did Mr. Jeffrey brief the Republican congressman that went as well?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. We do have -- we at least offer briefings to the congressional delegations who go out to the region and in particular to Syria.

QUESTION: Is there a reason why the White House and the State Department highlighted that Speaker Pelosi's trip was a bad idea, but there are also Republican congressman doing the same thing and we didn't hear anything about that last week? Is it simply not being asked about it or --

MR. MCCORMACK: A few things. One, first of all, we were asked about it here at the State Department. The second thing is, you know, you have the third -- the person second in line to the presidency, third highest-ranking elected official in the national -- elected official in the United States. So of course that raises the profile of the visit there and, frankly, we think, sends the wrong signal because in the past the Syrian Government has just used high-level visitors as a way of pointing -- trying to point out to the world that, look, there's no problem with our behavior; see, we're receiving high-level visitors in Damascus.

The other thing is I would point out a few months ago when Senator Specter decided to travel to Syria, we talked quite openly and in public about the fact that we didn't think it was a good idea for him to go there. Nonetheless, he decided to go there and we offered the same kind of support to him as we are offering to Speaker Pelosi as well as other congressional delegations that decide to go to Syria.

QUESTION: It seems a bit confusing though if you're saying that she's sending the wrong signal, yet you're sitting down with her and briefing her and, you know, giving her some guidance as to what --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it works -- I think it's important for everybody. I think it's to the benefit of not only the Executive Branch but the Congressional Branch to have an understanding, a solid understanding, of what our policies are and what our most recent interactions have been with the Syrian Government. I think that that is useful information for us to convey and for congressional delegations to receive. It's also a matter of courtesy, just as it is a matter of courtesy that we would extend support to visiting congressional delegations when they visit foreign countries as well as Syria.

SOURCE:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/apr/82547.htm
_________________
Please elaborate again PPJ where the LAW was Broken and where is your outrage about the Republican Officials who visited Syria? Please demand the same prison term for those Republican Officials that you so eagerly want the Speaker of the House to receive. I agreed with you that two wrongs don't make a right and comparing this trip to a trip in 1996[sic] are two different issues however in recent times there have been Republican Officials traveling to Syria without the blessing of the White House.

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

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

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.

The author:

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

It is plain we are now seeing what I expected to happen. And that is the Left Democrats demonstrating to the country that they can not be trusted with the defense of the country.

-- the White House asked her not to go
-- Olmert immediately repudiated what she said about Israel
-- Lantos talking about creating an "alternative" policy

aren't part of reality for you?  Freelancing in this area is a bad idea.  It's stupid without regard to the person or the partisan instinct the person has in mind.  All Pelosi managed was to make Assad look good.  

As to Republicans doing the same: Note that I said "Freelancing in this area is a bad idea.  It's stupid without regard to the person or the partisan instinct the person has in mind."

As for the Logan Act, I don't know. But there is little doubt that her trip was a total waste and counterproductive.

§ 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.

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.

Note the "directly or indirectly commences..."

Note the "intent to infuence the measures..."

So nothing must be negotiated.

I hope this helps you.

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Taking a look at my response, I find that I am negative towards your continual posturing. I can be just as sarcastic and generally appreciate a sharp tongue, especially one with some demonstrated wit. Perhaps it is your pronounced former and lack of the latter that drew my negative response.

Oh well, to return to the discussion, I have tried to make two points.

The first was the Logan Act, what it has meant, and some comments by people who may not be as smart as Big Tent Democrat, but are smarter than either of us. Or at least know more law and more history in this matter. To that end I posted portions of the WSJ article, with a link to the article.

The article also gives quite a bit of history and suggests that the DOJ look into the actions of the people involved, especially Pelosi to determine if they have broken the law.

From a legal view, I don't know. From a personal view I think she has at the very least, violated common sense. I also think it is her ego more than anything else that drives her to do these things. And while we all are driven by our egos, an ego driven leader is especially prone to do things that are harmful to the group.

The second point was that I believe her trip was harmful to those serving in Iraq, and helpful to the terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and around the world. I think the comments of the terrorists, I quoted one and have given a link, demonstrates that.

You make several other comments, all seemingly designed to defend her actions.

Permission to engage in diplomacy is the President's, not the DOS. It really is just that simple.

In this case he asked her not to go. Dear Leader and Friends said they would. DOS briefed them which is right and proper.

Think of it as a semi-mature child saying they are going to "go." The parent, asks them not to, but knowing the child will anyway, provides information on road conditions, etc.

Yes, there are three branches of government. Each have separate tasks as defined by the Constitution. If you think that the Speaker of the House is supposed to meet with foreign leaders in opposition to the President's wishes, then I am sure you will agree that Bush can spend whatever he wishes on the war.

BTW - They are not "equal" except in the whole. Each has powers the other does not, and will be unequal in the application of those powers.
eg - The Executive by its ability to veto, thus requiring a two thirds majority, is the definitive master in law making. The Congress with its ability to introduce or not introduce bills is the definitive master in the beginning of legislation.

As for the rest of your caterwauling, I am just going to mostly ignore except I note that Senator's Specter's trip to Syria was not a topic on this blog, so I didn't comment on it. As I have asked you to read the thread, something you evidently don't think necessary, before accusing, I'm not going to go into the details of my condemnation of the Repubs.

As for Specter, I assume he asked for and received clearance to go. At the very least the President did not ask him NOT to go. At the end of the day that is the difference between the two trips.

As for your comment re the damage that the threat of impeachment and Pelosi's trip has done, please be mature enough to know that the ME does not understand our politics totally, and that a denial by a politician has little creditability here, and much less so in the slaughter houses of the terrorists.

You close with some typical attacks:

As for trying to prove a point to you, come off your Righteous High Horse PPJ. You obviously searched for out this particular issue on this blog to Troll.

As for searching, evidently you are the one doing that because you are apparently unaware that I have been a regular member of this community since about 03/03.

Being a liberal on social issues and a hawk on defense is not mutually exclusive.

My position as an Independent and Social Liberal is well proven and available in the archives. Based on your problems with quotations and links I would guess searching is also a problem. So I offer to provide examples to you. One example for each $20.00 donated to TalkLeft.

All in all I find your presumptive belief that anyone being with Bush on National Defense also means that they are with Bush on all other issues common in the Far Left and the Far Right. It demonstrates a lack of maturity of thought, and a certain inability to see the shades and nuances that exist in the world.

One, he had destroyed them prior to our arrival.

Two, he wanted to get back into the game.

Three, Bush believed because he had to believe.

The first two have been discussed time and again, but the third has not. Simply put, it states the position a leader must take in certain situations as compared to those in the peanut gallery. It goes to who has the responsibility to see that certain required tasks get done. The President's prime responsibility is the defense of the country. He cannot afford to have the type of mistakes that we saw prior to 9/11.

Put another way, I once flew a bid team into a city three days before a bid date. When asked why, my response was simple. I could not afford to take any chance that we would not be there. The stakes were just too high.

Saddams' comments, his historical actions and the available intelligence left Bush no choice.

I also believe that Saddam was a terrorism enabler. We have proof that he paid the  families  of terrorists who attacked in Israel. I think we also have proof that he agreed to work with al-Qaida on other projects. To that end I note Fitzgerald's comments and common sense. People, even people who dislike each other, will make temporary alliances against common enemies.  That really is one of the laws of politics.

Those, I believe, were the basic drivers behind Bush.

You either have alzheimers

What that means, of course, is that you recognize your argument is weak... or else your natural disposition is to insult. I believe it is the latter.

Your argument consists of quoting a few examples and ignoring others.

So to cut to the chase, my main point is that Bush had more than enough information to make him believe that there was enough smoke to warrant calling the fire department.

That you do not says:

1. You are a Left Wing Democrat who would not be satisfied no matter what Bush did.

2. You are an expert Monday Morning Quarterback who has never actually been in the "game."

Section 8.
"The Congress shall have power to...
regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes; To define and punish
piracies and felonies committed on
the high seas,

and offenses against the law of nations;  

To declare war,
grant letters of marque and reprisal,
and make rules concerning captures on land
and water;

To raise and support armies,                        

but no appropriation of money to that use

shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions...