Dems consider boycott Netanyahu address to Joint Congress

Q

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190957#.VNNiaE90zcs

Several Democratic senators said Wednesday that they are considering boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech before Congress, CNN reported.

The Senators wish to protest House of Representatives' Speaker, Republican John Boehner, for disregarding United States protocol and inviting Netanyahu without the White House's knowledge or involvement.

"Colleagues of mine are very concerned about it and I'm troubled by it. I won't name names, of course," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois. "It's a serious mistake by the speaker and the prime minister. The relationship between Israel and the United States has been so strong, so bipartisan."

Durbin said he had not yet decided whether to attend the March 3 speech, in which Netanyahu is expected to criticize the West's nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran.

"One of my closest friends - one of the strongest supporters of Israel - described this Boehner tactic as a disaster, a terrible disaster for Israel," Durbin added.
"I won't speak for any other members but they've been talking to me about what is the right way to react to what could turn out to be a divisive event."
Other Democratic Senators are equivocating on whether to attend, while still others, such as Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, made clear they would not.
There have even been discussions of a mass boycott, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said.
Click to expand...

Finally some ball inflation. Those of you lucky enough to have a democratic Representative and/or Senator.. Give 'em a jingle.. encourage them to stand up for what is right. I certainly will call mine. Boehner is in direct violation of the Logan act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act and he should be charged with a felony.
 

I hope they all leave and don't come back. I'm betting most will stay though.

You seem to misinterpret both the Logan act and what Boehner did.

The Logan act concerns unauthorized citizens negotiating with foreign countries. Most would argue that a congressional leader is authorized but more to the point, inviting someone to speak is not negotiating anything.
 
A serious mistake, indeed. I read that Netanyahu is receiving flack at home over this, I hope he will be voted out and the Democrats walk out in March. Can you just image the investigations if Pelosi had pulled such a stunt.
 

Fingers crossed that the Democrats follow through on this threat! Step in the right direction and I wonder how wound up this will make AIPAC? Love to be a fly on their wall if the Democrats do this.
 
Jackie22 said:
A serious mistake, indeed. I read that Netanyahu is receiving flack at home over this, I hope he will be voted out and the Democrats walk out in March. Can you just image the investigations if Pelosi had pulled such a stunt.
Click to expand...


I heard someone say that it would be really cool is all Dems marched in in silence... took off one shoe and placed it on their chair and turned around and walked out... Of course Dems have too much class for that.... as that would be more of a Republican stunt... but it still would be very funny.

I agree Jackie... the best thing Netanyahu can do is cancel the speech and Boehner certainly will not uninvited him.
 
The tensions hit a high in the meeting between Dermer and the seven Jewish Democratic lawmakers: Reps. Jerry Nadler, Nita Lowey and Steve Israel of New York; Jan Schakowsky of Illinois; Sander Levin of Michigan; and Ted Deutch and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.

The hour-long confab, in Rep. Israel’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building, was contentious and spirited, several sources said. The lawmakers expressed displeasure and concern over Netanyahu’s decision to arrange the invitation with Boehner, according to a source familiar with the meeting. They said it was a step that could make support for Israel a partisan issue. Lawmakers, they said, are having to choose between supporting President Barack Obama and Netanyahu. Even as staunchly pro-Israel members, they said, they’re put in a tough position by partisan concerns and boycott threats.

“I organized the meeting with Ambassador Dermer, and I invited key Congressional Democratic supporters of Israel to attend,” Israel said. “There were a wide range of views that were discussed, but one thing we all agreed on emphatically is that Israel should never be used as a political football.”
The Democrats suggested that perhaps Netanyahu could speak to lawmakers privately.

In a mark of how controversial the speech has become — after Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak and told the White House only on the morning it was announced to the public — Vice President Joe Biden won’t commit to attending the speech, and neither will dozens of Democrats in the House or Senate. Obama has ruled out meeting with the prime minister on a trip that’s scheduled for just two weeks before the Israeli elections.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...er-jewish-democrats-114901.html#ixzz3QsKt3iSZ
 
Well I called my Congressman, Dan Lipinski.. and my Senator, Dick Durbin to urge them to both boycott Netanyahu's and Boehner's stunt. First words out? They are PRO ISRAEL!! What the hell does Israel have to do with this? Other than Netanyahu and the Republicans don't want peaceful negotiations with Iran... but would rather a WAR.. We are ALL pro-Israel... but we are also pro-peace. AND we are sick and tired of this President being disrespected in any way they can dream up. It's time that the House and Senate Democrats grow a pair... or at least inflate the ones they have.
 
Why hasn't the President been very observant of Israels situation this past couple years or so? I did not know that only the President would have the power to meet with other countries leaders. Must be a new rule. Thanks for the link if you know where that rule is.
 
The Speaker of the House openly violated the so-called Logan Act that was signed into law and enacted in 1799 by President John Adams and codified in 18 U.S. Code § 953.


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.
Click to expand...
​

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.​
Click to expand...




The Code addresses precisely what Speaker of the House John A. Boehner did in conspiring with Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress to defeat the measures of the United States in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.


​
The Logan Act prohibits any “Private correspondence with foreign governments” and reads; “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.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot and should not conduct foreign affairs; that power rests in the Executive Branch exclusively.

In the 1936 Supreme Court case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, the Court held that “all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President. It is given implicitly and by the fact that the executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way that Congress cannot and should not.”

Boehner just does not, and Republicans cannot, accept that yes, “all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President;” regardless of the fact he is an African American man or that Republicans’ allegiance is to a foreign power; in this case Israel.

Boehner violated the Logan Act just by “directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof” with his admitted and explicit intent of influencing measures of the United States.

Boehner did say publicly that his reason for illegally corresponding with Netanyahu was to “specifically ask him (Netanyahu) to address Congress and send a clear message to the White House about our commitment to Israel.”
 
I hope they do boycott. We need more open protest. Better than the smoke filled backroom deals normally used to smooth these things out. Heck the Dems already sent campaign operatives to Israel to defeat Netanyahu, something only the CIA would do in South America and South East Asia.
 
This guys blog made sense to me:

http://www.quora.com/Does-the-Logan-Act-of-1799-apply-to-the-Boehner-Netanyahu-situation

Elliott Mason, parent, geek, Chicagoan, activ... (more) 1 upvote by John Colagioia.

Wikipedia says the Logan Act "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."

The key points here for applying it to the Boehner/Netanyahu thing revolve around definitional issues:

  • unauthorized citizens - the Speaker of the House is clearly not a mere civilian. Whether that makes him 'authorized' under the Logan Act is a separate matter, but there's definitely wiggle room.
  • negotiating - Are there any negotiations involved? We'll have to see, but it's currently being billed as inviting a foreign dignitary to address Congress assembled (or just the House, reports differ). Asking someone to give a speech is not negotiating with them.
  • with foreign governments - It's an individual. Not everything Netanyahu does is an act of his government (just as not everything Boehner does is an act of the US government as a whole).

The Logan Act would not apply if Speaker Boehner wanted to have a complicated negotiation with Mr. Netanyahu about where to go for dinner, or which florist Mr. Netanyahu should use for state functions back in Israel.

Whether it applies here is still an open question. By some reports, Mr. Netanyahu effectively wishes to make a campaign speech -- he's trying to score points in the upcoming Israeli election by what he says in the US.
 
Josiah09 said:
Great research SB, regarding the Logan act.

BobF, international diplomacy is normally conducted in accordance with very strict rules of protocol. Rules which both Boehner and Netanyahu are violating.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and only the PRESIDENT has the power to negotiate foreign policy. By bringing in Netanyahu.. Boehner is effectively sabotaging the Presidents negotiations with Iran by allowing Netanyahu to use the US congress as a political platform.
 
So far it seems only the far left followers are upset by this invite to talk to the US Congress. I have not seen any US political discussion going on here as talking about the worlds situation would not be news to anyone at all. I suppose that there may be something wrong for some folks. Always have some that wish to see only their ideas and thoughts held and the rest to shut up.

Before I say Boehner is wrong, I will wait and see how things really turn out. Did Boehner really not approach Obama or is this the reaction to Obama's often too aloof or disinterested in what others think and say to answer a request to have a speaker in the Congress. Just more things for folks to think about.
 
I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves. Some of the posts were good here like Seabreeze, and I really liked what I found because a lot of things are just assumed, without a thorough look at what's happened. He may be guilty of a wrong, but I don't like linch mobs, no trial, he's a republican, fry him. That sort of attitude will continue to tear this country apart.
 
nwlady said:
I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves. Some of the posts were good here like Seabreeze, and I really liked what I found because a lot of things are just assumed, without a thorough look at what's happened. He may be guilty of a wrong, but I don't like linch mobs, no trial, he's a republican, fry him. That sort of attitude will continue to tear this country apart.
Click to expand...

Well, it's clear to me you are whining because you are a Republican, that is no sin, but I have seen in just today's posts some negative comments directed at members of this forum who were supporting Democrat positions. I have yet to see you jump in to condemn that. If you were as meticulous in studying the issues discussed as you feel others should be perhaps you would have a different opinion. Now as to the issue here, if it is or isn't a violation of law is for others to decide but it is, at the minimum a breach of protocol. If you wish to play at neutrality, be neutral. I applaud your interest however.
 
WhatInThe said:
I hope they do boycott. We need more open protest. Better than the smoke filled backroom deals normally used to smooth these things out. Heck the Dems already sent campaign operatives to Israel to defeat Netanyahu, something only the CIA would do in South America and South East Asia.
Click to expand...

Of course you can document this?
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

"In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it.
Constitutionality of the Act[edit]"

"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution".[SUP][7][/SUP]
​
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top