Senators butting in

Published March 12, 2015

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, March 12, 2015.

George Logan was a political ally of Thomas Jefferson who made a secret diplomatic trip to France in 1798. He might have helped avert a war, but he drew the wrath of Federalists and President John Adams for interfering in foreign affairs.

The result was the Logan Act, which makes it a crime for an unauthorized citizen to carry out “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government” with the intent of influencing its conduct in relation to any dispute with the United States.

The law, still on the books, has rarely been applied or even threatened. But its purpose — to establish who is authorized to negotiate with the nations of the world on behalf of our government — came to mind after 47 Republican senators wrote a letter to Iran warning that any agreement it negotiates with the United States likely won’t be ratified or enforced for long.

Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, unfortunately, were two of the 47 who signed the letter.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power of “advice and consent” in regard to treaties. There’s a role for senators in the conduct of foreign policy, which is why the Senate has a Foreign Relations Committee. Its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), wisely didn’t sign the letter.

The Senate’s legitimate role doesn’t include undermining negotiations with other countries. This is exactly what the Burr-Tillis letter does.

Tillis has touted his support for a bill that requires President Barack Obama to submit to the Senate any deal reached with Iran within five days and applies stricter economic sanctions on Iran if no agreement is reached by June 30. That does not overstep the Senate’s authority.

This letter goes way out of bounds. The Senate’s job is to review a proposed agreement after it is made, not to pre-empt a deal.

Republicans in Congress have made it clear that, when it comes to dealing with Iran, they trust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not Obama. Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran are worth considering. They stem from the Islamic republic’s hostility toward Israel and the threat it would pose if it acquired nuclear weapons. The Obama administration should not make a deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear arms. It has said it won’t let that happen. But military action should be the last option. Netanyahu’s belligerent address to Congress last week gave the impression that Israel is prepared to take that step sooner rather than later. Republicans cheered, but the American people may not be so eager for their country to enter a war with Iran.

Responding to the speech, Burr said, “Over the last six years, I have watched this administration’s foreign policy failures in the Middle East pile up and erode our relationship with Israel.”

There was a mountain of failures before Obama. Yet, U.S. military support for Israel has increased during his administration. Intelligence cooperation is high. The relationship is good.

There is disagreement about an Iran deal, but a “foreign policy failure” is exactly what 47 senators are trying to achieve — even before there is a deal.

March 12, 2015 at 8:03 am
Frank Burns says:

Obama is wasting time coming up with a non legally binding deal with Iran (pronounced eye-ran). What good is a non legally binding deal, not ratified by Congress? The Senators were correct in sending the letter.

March 12, 2015 at 10:00 am
Norm Kelly says:

'The relationship is good'. I wonder. Is the relationship as strong as it was 7 years ago? Is the relationship strained? One must wonder what Israelis think about the relationship when the current unqualified occupier snubs the prime minister multiple times. It was our fearful, lead-from-behind occupier who wanted Israel to give back land to those defeated in war and go back to borders from 1967. This was definitely not an effort to SUPPORT Israel. It is the occupier who wants Israel to stop bombing Palestinians in response to attacks on Israel. It is our occupier who doesn't recognize that Israel is responding to aggression. Is this because our occupier doesn't understand that our nation is also being targeted by Islamic Extremists. It is our occupier who appears to capitulate to Islamists at every opportunity.

'The Obama administration should not make a deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear arms'. Absolutely true. Truer words are hard to find, especially when concerns this administration. Exactly who in the world believes the occupier will make sure this is the result? What part of capitulating to Islamists do some people NOT understand? Must be media allies of the occupier, showing their never-ending, rigid support for their socialist leader. Is this the same occupier who told the Russians to wait until after the election so he'd have more flexibility? What part of that sounds like he's pro-American? Is this the same occupier who wants to give up our national sovereignty and provide identification, jobs, benefits to illegal aliens? Is this the same occupier who lied about Benghazi where Americans died, and then didn't investigate but obfuscated instead? Is this the same occupier who KNOWINGLY LIED to the American people on multiple occasions about keeping our insurance or doctor if we liked them? How many times can the occupier be caught outright lying to people, directly in their face, before we start to ask if he can be trusted? The rich don't pay their fair share? What lie makes him believable now? If he capitulates with Islamists at every opportunity, on what grounds should he be trusted to fairly, honestly, openly negotiate with Iran, a nation that is determined to destroy OUR ALLY Israel?

'Republicans in Congress ... trust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not Obama'. Of course. Who trusts the occupier more than Netanyahu? On what grounds is the occupier considered more trustworthy than Netanyahu? Netanyahu has Israel's best interests in mind. Can the same be said of the unqualified community organizer? Only by die-hard, socialist, lib allies of his. Thinking people, those who truly love our Republic, those who believe in the rule of law, have no trust in this man's words or deeds. Remember when he sold out investors in the auto industry in favor of unions? Against the laws of the nation! I might not follow Netanyahu off the nearest cliff if he told me there was a safety net, but I definitely would not follow the liar-in-chief anywhere NEAR a cliff cuz I know, based on his history, it would be a trap.

It may not have been kosher for the Senators to send a letter to Iran, but it was the right thing to do. At some point the office of President must be kept in line with the rules. This is something seriously lacking in the past 6+ years. Who is reigning in this occupant? What will happen when the next Republican occupies the office? How will socialists in the Senate respond when that President chooses to ignore the rule of law and the U S Constitution? Will socialist Senators and media ally types choose to ignore THAT president or will they take decisive action? I can't imagine 'news' papers ignoring a Republican president who usurps authority & power from other branches of government. I expect, based on their history, that socialists and media allies will call for impeachment.

March 13, 2015 at 11:16 pm
Richard L Bunce says:

You mean like the Boland Amendment passed by a Democratic Majority in Congress in 1985?