Half of the US Senate Just Committed Felonies, Could Face 3 Years in Prison

March 10, 2015   |   Nick Bernabe

Nick Bernabe
March 10, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C. — Congress has really outdone itself this time. On Monday, neoconservative Republicans in the Senate were apparently so eager to go to war with Iran that they broke a federal law known as the Logan Act in the process. The Logan Act has been around since 1799 and has remained mostly unchanged, created to keep rogue members of Congress from undermining foreign relations.

How did Senate Republicans violate the Logan Act? Well they did that by being war mongers. But more specifically, when 47 members of Congress signed onto a letter that was sent to Iranian officials in an attempt to undermine the peace deal with Iran, they clearly violated the act — and also all committed felonies. According to Cornell University, the act 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.”

And the precedent has already been clearly set. In the case United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

“The 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.”

The Republicans, who so often talk of the Constitution almost as highly as they talk of their support for Israel, seem to have trampled over the document multiple times in as many weeks. You see, when they invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to congress, they were in violation of the Logan Act then too. John Boehner is mostly at fault for the Netanyahu fiasco, though, so he’s the only member of the House that should be prosecuted for that.

However, 47 members of the US Senate — all Republicans — have clearly violated the Logan Act, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Three years in prison for 47 members of our war mongering Congress? I would support that. The real question is: will enough Americans stand up and carry out the laws that are written plain as day in the Constitution, or will we simply sit back and expect the government to punish itself?

President Obama, who himself has shown little to no respect for the Constitution, seems to have no interest in prosecuting the war mongering 47, so that’s up to us to carry out. A petition to charge the Senators has already racked up over 40,000 signatures overnight (UPDATE: the petition has now surpassed 100,000 signatures, which means the White House will have to respond to it).

However, Citizen’s arrest seems to be a more effective plan of action than petitioning. These 47 men committed felonies and should be charged just as any one of us regular folks would be when we commit a crime. Who should we arrest first? John McCain or Lindsey Graham?


This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune in to the Anti-Media radio show Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eeastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

Author: Nick Bernabe

Nick Bernabe founded Anti-Media in May of 2012. His topics of interest include civil liberties, the drug war, economic justice, foreign policy, geopolitics, government corruption, the police state, politics, propaganda, and social justice. He currently resides in Chula Vista, California, where he was born and raised.

Share This Post On

243 Comments

  1. So oblunder can violate laws by the hundreds but not Republicans ??? I question the authority of any of the Government in place Criminals all

    Post a Reply
  2. So oblunder can violate laws by the hundreds but not Republicans ??? I question the authority of any of the Government in place Criminals all

    Post a Reply
  3. So oblunder can violate laws by the hundreds but not Republicans ??? I question the authority of any of the Government in place Criminals all

    Post a Reply
  4. So oblunder can violate laws by the hundreds but not Republicans ??? I question the authority of any of the Government in place Criminals all

    Post a Reply
  5. Quit your goddamned bullshit. Laws are laws. If someone violates them you don't write them off because someone else got away with it. You have the intellect of a 3 year old.

    Post a Reply
  6. Quit your goddamned bullshit. Laws are laws. If someone violates them you don't write them off because someone else got away with it. You have the intellect of a 3 year old.

    Post a Reply
  7. Quit your goddamned bullshit. Laws are laws. If someone violates them you don't write them off because someone else got away with it. You have the intellect of a 3 year old.

    Post a Reply
  8. Arrest them all, republican or democrat when they commit crimes idaf who they are

    Post a Reply
  9. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  10. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  11. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  12. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  13. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  14. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  15. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  16. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  17. Who writes for this site? 15 year olds? seriously, read this article and pay attention to the wording. It's so immature it's not even funny.

    Post a Reply
  18. I wrote this article. What is your complaint about my writing style? Immature? Please elaborate

    Post a Reply
  19. Why not start a petition? In the very least, the White House will have to give an official response regarding the law being broken.

    Post a Reply
  20. I'd pay attention to what you write first. "seriously" should be capitalized. What are you, a 15 year old?

    Post a Reply
  21. don't forget the kerry trip to south america in the 80's petitioning against regan…. as long as we are keeping track of facts that is.

    Post a Reply
  22. I know right! The guy calls me out on my writing while simultaneously making grammatical mistakes of his own. lol

    Post a Reply
  23. I know right! The guy calls me out on my writing while simultaneously making grammatical mistakes of his own. lol

    Post a Reply
  24. They are all complicit with an agenda. They are untouchable, they know it. The people are apathetic because we are not represented. Nothing will be done about the lawlessness of our law makers. The whole system needs a Re-boot.

    Post a Reply
  25. They are all complicit with an agenda. They are untouchable, they know it. The people are apathetic because we are not represented. Nothing will be done about the lawlessness of our law makers. The whole system needs a Re-boot.

    Post a Reply
  26. And yet nothing will be done. If they can impeach a president, they should be jailed

    Post a Reply
  27. And yet nothing will be done. If they can impeach a president, they should be jailed

    Post a Reply
  28. And yet nothing will be done. If they can impeach a president, they should be jailed

    Post a Reply
  29. And yet nothing will be done. If they can impeach a president, they should be jailed

    Post a Reply
  30. And yet nothing will be done. If they can impeach a president, they should be jailed

    Post a Reply
  31. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  32. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  33. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  34. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  35. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  36. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  37. Nick Bernabe You might want to fix the first sentence in the second paragraph that is most likely what they are refereeing to, it reads funny with the they in there.

    Post a Reply
  38. Thank you! I'm not a big supporter of petitions, but I've edited and added this to the article.

    Post a Reply
  39. I forgot I'm in USA which comment is so American. Whoever wrote this at least have a guts to spill the lies of your leaders. The law is law, who is breaking your very leaders. That's why people all over the world is laughing at all of you, oh that is not WITH you but AT you. Hahaha

    Post a Reply
  40. I forgot I'm in USA which comment is so American. Whoever wrote this at least have a guts to spill the lies of your leaders. The law is law, who is breaking your very leaders. That's why people all over the world is laughing at all of you, oh that is not WITH you but AT you. Hahaha

    Post a Reply
  41. I forgot I'm in USA which comment is so American. Whoever wrote this at least have a guts to spill the lies of your leaders. The law is law, who is breaking your very leaders. That's why people all over the world is laughing at all of you, oh that is not WITH you but AT you. Hahaha

    Post a Reply
  42. I forgot I'm in USA which comment is so American. Whoever wrote this at least have a guts to spill the lies of your leaders. The law is law, who is breaking your very leaders. That's why people all over the world is laughing at all of you, oh that is not WITH you but AT you. Hahaha

    Post a Reply
  43. Law is law who has been violated by your own leaders. Wake up! Only in the USA. I can't wait the day when the whole world gets so pissed off and bombed America so that they can wake the F$&k up!

    Post a Reply
  44. Law is law who has been violated by your own leaders. Wake up! Only in the USA. I can't wait the day when the whole world gets so pissed off and bombed America so that they can wake the F$&k up!

    Post a Reply
  45. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  46. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  47. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  48. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  49. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  50. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  51. To seek the truth in America, you must be vigilant, and uncompromising… I dig this. Thanks for the info. Posted on my fb, with the petition (thank you as well, Jarrett). I'd love to be a part of helping American "representatives" learn that they are NOT above the law…

    Post a Reply
  52. Start with john and then Ben the rest over the judges table and shove the constitution up there ass because that's were there heads are

    Post a Reply
  53. I completely disagree about the POTUS stomping on your Constitution, but, the rest I agree with!

    Post a Reply
  54. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  55. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  56. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  57. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  58. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  59. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  60. Nick Bernabe Technically, that person made an error in capitalization. It's not a grammatical error. :P

    Post a Reply
  61. Only need 1000 more signatures!!!

    Post a Reply
  62. What do you call 47 republicans who violate the Logan act? Criminal felons! Of course they should be punished

    Post a Reply
  63. Nick, Your article is short sided. The President was ready to negotiate and sign a deal with OUR BIGGEST ENEMY. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If the President wants to usurp LAW to bypass the "checks and balances," bypass Congress, bypass THE PEOPLE, then expect Congress to take extraordinary measures to stop him. Because that's WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Obama could care less about outlining this "deal" to the people until AFTER it's signed. Thank God for Congress, the PEOPLES representatives, for stopping this underhanded and dangerous deal with Iran. ALL the letter did was to remind Iran of OUR LAWS and to quash any misconceptions about this "deal." Obama was going to put the fate of the Israel and the entire world in HIS hands with this one on one deal. We need congressional oversight. We (the people) need to know what kind of "deal" is being made IN OUR NAME. You write a decent article, yet the very reason it's not good and informative is that you only cover one side, which is why MSNBC is bankrupt and draws less than 5% of the news viewers!

    Post a Reply
  64. Nick Bernabe No, sir. Thank you. :)

    Post a Reply
  65. Nick Bernabe No, sir. Thank you. :)

    Post a Reply
  66. Mike Jolin You aren't American so what would you know about our constitution. how about you stick to Canadian politics.

    Post a Reply
  67. Mike Jolin He has several times. They all do. haha. Obama has admitted it, as well.

    Post a Reply
  68. Shaun Robert Milligan Sweetie? Have you any idea how childish and stupid that comment makes you look?

    Post a Reply
  69. Nick Bernabe Notice Mr. Big Britches hasn't replied now that he has to actually face you. LOL

    Post a Reply
  70. Shaun Robert Milligan Really? Go back and read what you just said you closed minded twit. I'm American but i feel that it is important to educate myself on whats happening throughout the whole world, and have My Own opinion about it. Think of this… you know how when you read a random article online and you read the comments below, but then you read this one comment that makes you think "damn… that guy is a dick!" Well Shaun, :) thats you. :) Your a dick. :) Have a wonderful day :)

    Post a Reply
  71. First of all you have NO knowledge of what you write. This is NOT a treaty.It is an attempt to skirt the Constitution and give permission for Iran to continue it's mission of developing Nuclear technology with this Administration blessing.AN TREATY WITH IRAN WILL HAVE TO BE RATIFIED BY THE U. S. SENATE. Tis only between Obama and the Iranians. Get some knowledge of the constitution. Now if you want to discuss treason lets talk about Killary and Obama coverup in Benghazi.

    Post a Reply
  72. The rest of the world should be laughing at us, we are disgusting for allowing this to happen.

    Post a Reply
  73. The rest of the world should be laughing at us, we are disgusting for allowing this to happen.

    Post a Reply
  74. Traitors? Hardly. Antagonizing a co-equal branch of government has consequences
    posted at 11:31 am on March 10, 2015 by Noah Rothman

    Traitors! Wreckers! Saboteurs! The Senate Republicans, consumed as they are with a personal and irrational hatred for the president, have elected to thwart the administration’s glorious efforts to secure a nuclear deal with Iran and safeguard your family’s interests. The Republicans have put your children’s lives at risk with their reckless vandalism in an unprecedented betrayal of both king and country.

    And so on.

    These and other hyperbolic and overwrought pronouncements from the left followed the decision by 47 Republicans in the upper chamber of Congress to remind those negotiating a nuclear deal that their consent to any agreement is ultimately necessary if it is to survive beyond January 20, 2017.

    That shouldn’t have to be necessary. The GOP’s critics have a point when they note that this behavior is unseemly and distasteful. It has the effect of reducing the stature of the presidency amid negotiations with another sovereign nation. This is an interference with the president’s conduct of foreign affairs to a degree that does shock and even legitimately disturbs.

    There are some, however, who contend that this level of defiance to a sitting president is unprecedented, but it is not. There are others who insist that decorum alone demands that the opposition party in full control of the co-equal legislative chamber should defer to the White House in negotiations with Iran, but they shouldn’t. Finally, there are others who would honestly contend that this display of frustration on the part of Senate Republicans was entirely unprovoked. They are wrong.

    In 2007, many on the right were consumed by the same passionate fury with which Democrats presently contend. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in a display of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to foreign affairs. In Damascus, Pelosi represented the American political opposition when she sat down with the murderous thug Bashar al-Assad, a Ba’athist dictator who would begin deploying chemical weapons against his country’s civilian population just five years later.

    Pelosi maintained that she and President Bush shared the same goals, and she served merely as a de facto emissary for the administration. The White House disagreed. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

    Similarly, the case could be made that Republicans were merely advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by a Republican Senate. That the American administration opposes submitting any nuclear accord reached by the P5+1 to the Senate for ratification is immaterial.

    In 1991, it was revealed that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed quite a coup that might have dangerously undermined American foreign policy in the process. In 1983, then KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov composed a memorandum to General Secretary Yuri Andropov, himself a former KGB chief who brutally crushed the anti-Soviet rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively. The memo revealed that Kennedy had approached the Soviet spy service with an offer. “Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan,” Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote in 2009. “In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.”

    “Like other rational people” Chebrikov explained to Tovarish Andropov, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” For the Soviets’ assistance in 1984, Kennedy offered to help Andropov secure a variety of television interviews in the United States. Though President Reagan served as executor of American foreign policy and the guarantor of American interests at this time, and 1983 was a dangerous year for Soviet-American relations, Kennedy sought to undermine him for personal gain and the advancement of his party’s electoral prospects.

    A simple letter that reminds the Mullahs in command of the levers of power inside the Islamic Republic that the U.S. Senate plays a role in sanctioning American foreign policy seems tame by comparison.

    What Democrats appear to regard as an affront from the 47 GOP senators who lent their name to this letter should perhaps consider what led to this action in the first place. Merely dismissing this behavior as an outgrowth of blinding personal animus toward Obama might be comforting, but it is not explanatory.

    The White House has already pledged that it will not allow the Senate to play their constitutional role in ratifying this agreement. The White House has selectively implemented laws or virtually abrogated them altogether in the case of Obama’s various executive actions relating to the immigration code. The president has failed to faithfully execute even the laws he supports. The spectacle created by the disastrous implementation of the poorly crafted Affordable Care Act has forced Republicans in the House to sue the president over the health care reform law’s selective enforcement.

    When Congress failed to abide by the president’s whims and pass new legislation relating to climate change, Obama ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to simply impose new limits on emissions from power plants. The Republican Senate majority leader’s response to this power-grab was to advise the states to ignore those regulations. Predictably, this admonishment prompted the administration to posture as though there was a coup afoot.

    When Obama is not undermining the co-equal authority enjoyed by the legislative branch of the federal government, he is insulting those invested by the American public with the authority to manage that institution.

    “It’s good to get away from Congress,” the president joked when asked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what he most looked forward to on his 2013 trip to the Jewish State. “So much for the charm offensive,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) sighed.

    “Remember late last year when a fiscal cliff deal was in sight, and President Obama held a press conference with multiple jabs at Congress?” CBS News political analyst John Dickerson recalled in that year. “‘So … I’m confused,” said a spokesperson for Eric Cantor, ‘Does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.’”

    “That news conference created ill-will that didn’t kill the deal, but it has made working on another one much harder,” Dickerson observed.

    The contentious relationship between the Republican-led Congress and the Obama White House is a two-way street, and it is a relationship that has been fraying for years. But the president undermines Congressional authority at his peril, and the consequences for that behavior are only now becoming clear. In their wisdom, the Founders empowered the representatives of the majority in both chambers of Congress with the authority to represent the public second only to the president and the vice president. The president and his supporters feign shock when America’s representatives in Congress deploy some of that authority, but it is only theater.

    Obama and his allies sowed the wind. To the extent that a simple letter from 47 Senate Republicans is representative of the whirlwind, it is the administration’s lot to reap it.

    Post a Reply
  75. Traitors? Hardly. Antagonizing a co-equal branch of government has consequences
    posted at 11:31 am on March 10, 2015 by Noah Rothman

    Traitors! Wreckers! Saboteurs! The Senate Republicans, consumed as they are with a personal and irrational hatred for the president, have elected to thwart the administration’s glorious efforts to secure a nuclear deal with Iran and safeguard your family’s interests. The Republicans have put your children’s lives at risk with their reckless vandalism in an unprecedented betrayal of both king and country.

    And so on.

    These and other hyperbolic and overwrought pronouncements from the left followed the decision by 47 Republicans in the upper chamber of Congress to remind those negotiating a nuclear deal that their consent to any agreement is ultimately necessary if it is to survive beyond January 20, 2017.

    That shouldn’t have to be necessary. The GOP’s critics have a point when they note that this behavior is unseemly and distasteful. It has the effect of reducing the stature of the presidency amid negotiations with another sovereign nation. This is an interference with the president’s conduct of foreign affairs to a degree that does shock and even legitimately disturbs.

    There are some, however, who contend that this level of defiance to a sitting president is unprecedented, but it is not. There are others who insist that decorum alone demands that the opposition party in full control of the co-equal legislative chamber should defer to the White House in negotiations with Iran, but they shouldn’t. Finally, there are others who would honestly contend that this display of frustration on the part of Senate Republicans was entirely unprovoked. They are wrong.

    In 2007, many on the right were consumed by the same passionate fury with which Democrats presently contend. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in a display of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to foreign affairs. In Damascus, Pelosi represented the American political opposition when she sat down with the murderous thug Bashar al-Assad, a Ba’athist dictator who would begin deploying chemical weapons against his country’s civilian population just five years later.

    Pelosi maintained that she and President Bush shared the same goals, and she served merely as a de facto emissary for the administration. The White House disagreed. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

    Similarly, the case could be made that Republicans were merely advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by a Republican Senate. That the American administration opposes submitting any nuclear accord reached by the P5+1 to the Senate for ratification is immaterial.

    In 1991, it was revealed that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed quite a coup that might have dangerously undermined American foreign policy in the process. In 1983, then KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov composed a memorandum to General Secretary Yuri Andropov, himself a former KGB chief who brutally crushed the anti-Soviet rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively. The memo revealed that Kennedy had approached the Soviet spy service with an offer. “Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan,” Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote in 2009. “In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.”

    “Like other rational people” Chebrikov explained to Tovarish Andropov, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” For the Soviets’ assistance in 1984, Kennedy offered to help Andropov secure a variety of television interviews in the United States. Though President Reagan served as executor of American foreign policy and the guarantor of American interests at this time, and 1983 was a dangerous year for Soviet-American relations, Kennedy sought to undermine him for personal gain and the advancement of his party’s electoral prospects.

    A simple letter that reminds the Mullahs in command of the levers of power inside the Islamic Republic that the U.S. Senate plays a role in sanctioning American foreign policy seems tame by comparison.

    What Democrats appear to regard as an affront from the 47 GOP senators who lent their name to this letter should perhaps consider what led to this action in the first place. Merely dismissing this behavior as an outgrowth of blinding personal animus toward Obama might be comforting, but it is not explanatory.

    The White House has already pledged that it will not allow the Senate to play their constitutional role in ratifying this agreement. The White House has selectively implemented laws or virtually abrogated them altogether in the case of Obama’s various executive actions relating to the immigration code. The president has failed to faithfully execute even the laws he supports. The spectacle created by the disastrous implementation of the poorly crafted Affordable Care Act has forced Republicans in the House to sue the president over the health care reform law’s selective enforcement.

    When Congress failed to abide by the president’s whims and pass new legislation relating to climate change, Obama ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to simply impose new limits on emissions from power plants. The Republican Senate majority leader’s response to this power-grab was to advise the states to ignore those regulations. Predictably, this admonishment prompted the administration to posture as though there was a coup afoot.

    When Obama is not undermining the co-equal authority enjoyed by the legislative branch of the federal government, he is insulting those invested by the American public with the authority to manage that institution.

    “It’s good to get away from Congress,” the president joked when asked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what he most looked forward to on his 2013 trip to the Jewish State. “So much for the charm offensive,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) sighed.

    “Remember late last year when a fiscal cliff deal was in sight, and President Obama held a press conference with multiple jabs at Congress?” CBS News political analyst John Dickerson recalled in that year. “‘So … I’m confused,” said a spokesperson for Eric Cantor, ‘Does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.’”

    “That news conference created ill-will that didn’t kill the deal, but it has made working on another one much harder,” Dickerson observed.

    The contentious relationship between the Republican-led Congress and the Obama White House is a two-way street, and it is a relationship that has been fraying for years. But the president undermines Congressional authority at his peril, and the consequences for that behavior are only now becoming clear. In their wisdom, the Founders empowered the representatives of the majority in both chambers of Congress with the authority to represent the public second only to the president and the vice president. The president and his supporters feign shock when America’s representatives in Congress deploy some of that authority, but it is only theater.

    Obama and his allies sowed the wind. To the extent that a simple letter from 47 Senate Republicans is representative of the whirlwind, it is the administration’s lot to reap it.

    Post a Reply
  76. Traitors? Hardly. Antagonizing a co-equal branch of government has consequences
    posted at 11:31 am on March 10, 2015 by Noah Rothman

    Traitors! Wreckers! Saboteurs! The Senate Republicans, consumed as they are with a personal and irrational hatred for the president, have elected to thwart the administration’s glorious efforts to secure a nuclear deal with Iran and safeguard your family’s interests. The Republicans have put your children’s lives at risk with their reckless vandalism in an unprecedented betrayal of both king and country.

    And so on.

    These and other hyperbolic and overwrought pronouncements from the left followed the decision by 47 Republicans in the upper chamber of Congress to remind those negotiating a nuclear deal that their consent to any agreement is ultimately necessary if it is to survive beyond January 20, 2017.

    That shouldn’t have to be necessary. The GOP’s critics have a point when they note that this behavior is unseemly and distasteful. It has the effect of reducing the stature of the presidency amid negotiations with another sovereign nation. This is an interference with the president’s conduct of foreign affairs to a degree that does shock and even legitimately disturbs.

    There are some, however, who contend that this level of defiance to a sitting president is unprecedented, but it is not. There are others who insist that decorum alone demands that the opposition party in full control of the co-equal legislative chamber should defer to the White House in negotiations with Iran, but they shouldn’t. Finally, there are others who would honestly contend that this display of frustration on the part of Senate Republicans was entirely unprovoked. They are wrong.

    In 2007, many on the right were consumed by the same passionate fury with which Democrats presently contend. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in a display of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to foreign affairs. In Damascus, Pelosi represented the American political opposition when she sat down with the murderous thug Bashar al-Assad, a Ba’athist dictator who would begin deploying chemical weapons against his country’s civilian population just five years later.

    Pelosi maintained that she and President Bush shared the same goals, and she served merely as a de facto emissary for the administration. The White House disagreed. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

    Similarly, the case could be made that Republicans were merely advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by a Republican Senate. That the American administration opposes submitting any nuclear accord reached by the P5+1 to the Senate for ratification is immaterial.

    In 1991, it was revealed that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed quite a coup that might have dangerously undermined American foreign policy in the process. In 1983, then KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov composed a memorandum to General Secretary Yuri Andropov, himself a former KGB chief who brutally crushed the anti-Soviet rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively. The memo revealed that Kennedy had approached the Soviet spy service with an offer. “Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan,” Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote in 2009. “In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.”

    “Like other rational people” Chebrikov explained to Tovarish Andropov, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” For the Soviets’ assistance in 1984, Kennedy offered to help Andropov secure a variety of television interviews in the United States. Though President Reagan served as executor of American foreign policy and the guarantor of American interests at this time, and 1983 was a dangerous year for Soviet-American relations, Kennedy sought to undermine him for personal gain and the advancement of his party’s electoral prospects.

    A simple letter that reminds the Mullahs in command of the levers of power inside the Islamic Republic that the U.S. Senate plays a role in sanctioning American foreign policy seems tame by comparison.

    What Democrats appear to regard as an affront from the 47 GOP senators who lent their name to this letter should perhaps consider what led to this action in the first place. Merely dismissing this behavior as an outgrowth of blinding personal animus toward Obama might be comforting, but it is not explanatory.

    The White House has already pledged that it will not allow the Senate to play their constitutional role in ratifying this agreement. The White House has selectively implemented laws or virtually abrogated them altogether in the case of Obama’s various executive actions relating to the immigration code. The president has failed to faithfully execute even the laws he supports. The spectacle created by the disastrous implementation of the poorly crafted Affordable Care Act has forced Republicans in the House to sue the president over the health care reform law’s selective enforcement.

    When Congress failed to abide by the president’s whims and pass new legislation relating to climate change, Obama ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to simply impose new limits on emissions from power plants. The Republican Senate majority leader’s response to this power-grab was to advise the states to ignore those regulations. Predictably, this admonishment prompted the administration to posture as though there was a coup afoot.

    When Obama is not undermining the co-equal authority enjoyed by the legislative branch of the federal government, he is insulting those invested by the American public with the authority to manage that institution.

    “It’s good to get away from Congress,” the president joked when asked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what he most looked forward to on his 2013 trip to the Jewish State. “So much for the charm offensive,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) sighed.

    “Remember late last year when a fiscal cliff deal was in sight, and President Obama held a press conference with multiple jabs at Congress?” CBS News political analyst John Dickerson recalled in that year. “‘So … I’m confused,” said a spokesperson for Eric Cantor, ‘Does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.’”

    “That news conference created ill-will that didn’t kill the deal, but it has made working on another one much harder,” Dickerson observed.

    The contentious relationship between the Republican-led Congress and the Obama White House is a two-way street, and it is a relationship that has been fraying for years. But the president undermines Congressional authority at his peril, and the consequences for that behavior are only now becoming clear. In their wisdom, the Founders empowered the representatives of the majority in both chambers of Congress with the authority to represent the public second only to the president and the vice president. The president and his supporters feign shock when America’s representatives in Congress deploy some of that authority, but it is only theater.

    Obama and his allies sowed the wind. To the extent that a simple letter from 47 Senate Republicans is representative of the whirlwind, it is the administration’s lot to reap it.

    Post a Reply
  77. Traitors? Hardly. Antagonizing a co-equal branch of government has consequences
    posted at 11:31 am on March 10, 2015 by Noah Rothman

    Traitors! Wreckers! Saboteurs! The Senate Republicans, consumed as they are with a personal and irrational hatred for the president, have elected to thwart the administration’s glorious efforts to secure a nuclear deal with Iran and safeguard your family’s interests. The Republicans have put your children’s lives at risk with their reckless vandalism in an unprecedented betrayal of both king and country.

    And so on.

    These and other hyperbolic and overwrought pronouncements from the left followed the decision by 47 Republicans in the upper chamber of Congress to remind those negotiating a nuclear deal that their consent to any agreement is ultimately necessary if it is to survive beyond January 20, 2017.

    That shouldn’t have to be necessary. The GOP’s critics have a point when they note that this behavior is unseemly and distasteful. It has the effect of reducing the stature of the presidency amid negotiations with another sovereign nation. This is an interference with the president’s conduct of foreign affairs to a degree that does shock and even legitimately disturbs.

    There are some, however, who contend that this level of defiance to a sitting president is unprecedented, but it is not. There are others who insist that decorum alone demands that the opposition party in full control of the co-equal legislative chamber should defer to the White House in negotiations with Iran, but they shouldn’t. Finally, there are others who would honestly contend that this display of frustration on the part of Senate Republicans was entirely unprovoked. They are wrong.

    In 2007, many on the right were consumed by the same passionate fury with which Democrats presently contend. Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in a display of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to foreign affairs. In Damascus, Pelosi represented the American political opposition when she sat down with the murderous thug Bashar al-Assad, a Ba’athist dictator who would begin deploying chemical weapons against his country’s civilian population just five years later.

    Pelosi maintained that she and President Bush shared the same goals, and she served merely as a de facto emissary for the administration. The White House disagreed. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

    Similarly, the case could be made that Republicans were merely advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by a Republican Senate. That the American administration opposes submitting any nuclear accord reached by the P5+1 to the Senate for ratification is immaterial.

    In 1991, it was revealed that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed quite a coup that might have dangerously undermined American foreign policy in the process. In 1983, then KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov composed a memorandum to General Secretary Yuri Andropov, himself a former KGB chief who brutally crushed the anti-Soviet rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively. The memo revealed that Kennedy had approached the Soviet spy service with an offer. “Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan,” Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote in 2009. “In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.”

    “Like other rational people” Chebrikov explained to Tovarish Andropov, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” For the Soviets’ assistance in 1984, Kennedy offered to help Andropov secure a variety of television interviews in the United States. Though President Reagan served as executor of American foreign policy and the guarantor of American interests at this time, and 1983 was a dangerous year for Soviet-American relations, Kennedy sought to undermine him for personal gain and the advancement of his party’s electoral prospects.

    A simple letter that reminds the Mullahs in command of the levers of power inside the Islamic Republic that the U.S. Senate plays a role in sanctioning American foreign policy seems tame by comparison.

    What Democrats appear to regard as an affront from the 47 GOP senators who lent their name to this letter should perhaps consider what led to this action in the first place. Merely dismissing this behavior as an outgrowth of blinding personal animus toward Obama might be comforting, but it is not explanatory.

    The White House has already pledged that it will not allow the Senate to play their constitutional role in ratifying this agreement. The White House has selectively implemented laws or virtually abrogated them altogether in the case of Obama’s various executive actions relating to the immigration code. The president has failed to faithfully execute even the laws he supports. The spectacle created by the disastrous implementation of the poorly crafted Affordable Care Act has forced Republicans in the House to sue the president over the health care reform law’s selective enforcement.

    When Congress failed to abide by the president’s whims and pass new legislation relating to climate change, Obama ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to simply impose new limits on emissions from power plants. The Republican Senate majority leader’s response to this power-grab was to advise the states to ignore those regulations. Predictably, this admonishment prompted the administration to posture as though there was a coup afoot.

    When Obama is not undermining the co-equal authority enjoyed by the legislative branch of the federal government, he is insulting those invested by the American public with the authority to manage that institution.

    “It’s good to get away from Congress,” the president joked when asked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what he most looked forward to on his 2013 trip to the Jewish State. “So much for the charm offensive,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) sighed.

    “Remember late last year when a fiscal cliff deal was in sight, and President Obama held a press conference with multiple jabs at Congress?” CBS News political analyst John Dickerson recalled in that year. “‘So … I’m confused,” said a spokesperson for Eric Cantor, ‘Does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.’”

    “That news conference created ill-will that didn’t kill the deal, but it has made working on another one much harder,” Dickerson observed.

    The contentious relationship between the Republican-led Congress and the Obama White House is a two-way street, and it is a relationship that has been fraying for years. But the president undermines Congressional authority at his peril, and the consequences for that behavior are only now becoming clear. In their wisdom, the Founders empowered the representatives of the majority in both chambers of Congress with the authority to represent the public second only to the president and the vice president. The president and his supporters feign shock when America’s representatives in Congress deploy some of that authority, but it is only theater.

    Obama and his allies sowed the wind. To the extent that a simple letter from 47 Senate Republicans is representative of the whirlwind, it is the administration’s lot to reap it.

    Post a Reply
  78. Nick Bernabe I like your message here, but I do see some errors would should be checked by an editor such as "so that’s up to us to figure carry out." I think you mean "so that's up to us to figure out", but it's hard to tell. I believe this is something Adrian was referring to.

    Post a Reply
  79. Bill Shit..My Ass! That law was used only once in 1804..and it went no where!The Dems.are trying BS…around..M-F

    Post a Reply
  80. If you wish to attain peace, we're in a position to buy it at a bargain. If we continue pissing off the world, peace (and prosperity) will become more and more expensive.

    Post a Reply
  81. lol @james alt I had no clue that foreign countries had to get permission from the US Senate to conduct scientific research. That's news to me!

    Post a Reply
  82. lol @james alt I had no clue that foreign countries had to get permission from the US Senate to conduct scientific research. That's news to me!

    Post a Reply
  83. There's no way in Hell that Obama would direct the Justice Dept. to arrest and prosecute 47 senators. Not only would Justice have a hard time getting convictions (all the billionaires who bankroll their campaigns will also bankroll their defenses), but until they're actually convicted, they can stay in the Senate. They'd become the folk heroes, the 47 brave senators who stood up to Obama and are now being persecuted for it by Justice Department thugs.

    Fox News viewership would triple, Rush Limbaugh's listenership would triple, the whole scenario would play right into the paranoid dictatorial scenarios the GOP keeps trying to pin on Obama. And if you thought the Democrats trying to distance themselves from Obama in the 2014 elections was disgusting, the 2016 campaign trail would put that to shame… but it wouldn't help. Republicans would be SO motivated to get out and vote, the GOP sweep of the 2016 election would be frightening.

    Post a Reply
  84. There's no way in Hell that Obama would direct the Justice Dept. to arrest and prosecute 47 senators. Not only would Justice have a hard time getting convictions (all the billionaires who bankroll their campaigns will also bankroll their defenses), but until they're actually convicted, they can stay in the Senate. They'd become the folk heroes, the 47 brave senators who stood up to Obama and are now being persecuted for it by Justice Department thugs.

    Fox News viewership would triple, Rush Limbaugh's listenership would triple, the whole scenario would play right into the paranoid dictatorial scenarios the GOP keeps trying to pin on Obama. And if you thought the Democrats trying to distance themselves from Obama in the 2014 elections was disgusting, the 2016 campaign trail would put that to shame… but it wouldn't help. Republicans would be SO motivated to get out and vote, the GOP sweep of the 2016 election would be frightening.

    Post a Reply
  85. There's no way in Hell that Obama would direct the Justice Dept. to arrest and prosecute 47 senators. Not only would Justice have a hard time getting convictions (all the billionaires who bankroll their campaigns will also bankroll their defenses), but until they're actually convicted, they can stay in the Senate. They'd become the folk heroes, the 47 brave senators who stood up to Obama and are now being persecuted for it by Justice Department thugs.

    Fox News viewership would triple, Rush Limbaugh's listenership would triple, the whole scenario would play right into the paranoid dictatorial scenarios the GOP keeps trying to pin on Obama. And if you thought the Democrats trying to distance themselves from Obama in the 2014 elections was disgusting, the 2016 campaign trail would put that to shame… but it wouldn't help. Republicans would be SO motivated to get out and vote, the GOP sweep of the 2016 election would be frightening.

    Post a Reply
  86. Nick Bernabe , he's probably referring to the numerous wording errors in the article. I don't think he's calling your "style" immature, as much as he is the mistakes that would be picked up by an editor, or someone with an advanced background in writing. EXAMPLE: "How did Senate Republicans they violate the Logan Act?" 'they' should be omitted. "so that’s up to us to figure carry out." Unless figure carrying is an actual thing, I believe one of those words should have been left out. Also, it is Citizen's arrest.

    Post a Reply
  87. Nick Bernabe Really Nick? They sponsor terrorism in 6 countries, Khomeini says he will destroy Israel and the US in a speech just last week. Iran killed 20% of our Iraqi war military. They are land grabbing. They are trying to build Nuclear weapons. They are on TOP of our ENEMIES LIST. Do NOT use our poor foreign policies as an excuse to ignore Iran's ominous threats. lol……what more do you want?

    Post a Reply
  88. Nick Bernabe Really Nick? They sponsor terrorism in 6 countries, Khomeini says he will destroy Israel and the US in a speech just last week. Iran killed 20% of our Iraqi war military. They are land grabbing. They are trying to build Nuclear weapons. They are on TOP of our ENEMIES LIST. Do NOT use our poor foreign policies as an excuse to ignore Iran's ominous threats. lol……what more do you want?

    Post a Reply
  89. Nick Bernabe Really Nick? They sponsor terrorism in 6 countries, Khomeini says he will destroy Israel and the US in a speech just last week. Iran killed 20% of our Iraqi war military. They are land grabbing. They are trying to build Nuclear weapons. They are on TOP of our ENEMIES LIST. Do NOT use our poor foreign policies as an excuse to ignore Iran's ominous threats. lol……what more do you want?

    Post a Reply
  90. Nick Bernabe Really Nick? They sponsor terrorism in 6 countries, Khomeini says he will destroy Israel and the US in a speech just last week. Iran killed 20% of our Iraqi war military. They are land grabbing. They are trying to build Nuclear weapons. They are on TOP of our ENEMIES LIST. Do NOT use our poor foreign policies as an excuse to ignore Iran's ominous threats. lol……what more do you want?

    Post a Reply
  91. I am so sick of uneducated stupid people still harboring that old brainwashing passed on and on regarding IRAN and RUSSIA and whoever else our government lies to us about. Anything John McCain says you can rest assured it is a war mongering lie. If Israel id involved another lie. We are the only country starting shit around the world. Our freedoms are only threatened by our own government not other countries.We need to stop destroying other countries and mind our own business. Our troops need to be home not out fighting for oil, control, bullshit. Our government lies to us ALL the time telling us these other countries are violating human rights etc., It is us who are violating human rights. People get a grip! Its all obvious and pretty much in your face, why are you so conditioned to believe otherwise?

    Post a Reply
  92. I am so sick of uneducated stupid people still harboring that old brainwashing passed on and on regarding IRAN and RUSSIA and whoever else our government lies to us about. Anything John McCain says you can rest assured it is a war mongering lie. If Israel id involved another lie. We are the only country starting shit around the world. Our freedoms are only threatened by our own government not other countries.We need to stop destroying other countries and mind our own business. Our troops need to be home not out fighting for oil, control, bullshit. Our government lies to us ALL the time telling us these other countries are violating human rights etc., It is us who are violating human rights. People get a grip! Its all obvious and pretty much in your face, why are you so conditioned to believe otherwise?

    Post a Reply
  93. I am so sick of uneducated stupid people still harboring that old brainwashing passed on and on regarding IRAN and RUSSIA and whoever else our government lies to us about. Anything John McCain says you can rest assured it is a war mongering lie. If Israel id involved another lie. We are the only country starting shit around the world. Our freedoms are only threatened by our own government not other countries.We need to stop destroying other countries and mind our own business. Our troops need to be home not out fighting for oil, control, bullshit. Our government lies to us ALL the time telling us these other countries are violating human rights etc., It is us who are violating human rights. People get a grip! Its all obvious and pretty much in your face, why are you so conditioned to believe otherwise?

    Post a Reply
  94. I am so sick of uneducated stupid people still harboring that old brainwashing passed on and on regarding IRAN and RUSSIA and whoever else our government lies to us about. Anything John McCain says you can rest assured it is a war mongering lie. If Israel id involved another lie. We are the only country starting shit around the world. Our freedoms are only threatened by our own government not other countries.We need to stop destroying other countries and mind our own business. Our troops need to be home not out fighting for oil, control, bullshit. Our government lies to us ALL the time telling us these other countries are violating human rights etc., It is us who are violating human rights. People get a grip! Its all obvious and pretty much in your face, why are you so conditioned to believe otherwise?

    Post a Reply
  95. Unfortunately, a law from 1799 that has remained unchanged or modified will probably be humorous to use against our country's "elite" 47.
    It's like blowing the dust off of a sandwich from the year 1800 and expecting it to taste delicious.

    Post a Reply
  96. Unfortunately, a law from 1799 that has remained unchanged or modified will probably be humorous to use against our country's "elite" 47.
    It's like blowing the dust off of a sandwich from the year 1800 and expecting it to taste delicious.

    Post a Reply
  97. Unfortunately, a law from 1799 that has remained unchanged or modified will probably be humorous to use against our country's "elite" 47.
    It's like blowing the dust off of a sandwich from the year 1800 and expecting it to taste delicious.

    Post a Reply
  98. Unfortunately, a law from 1799 that has remained unchanged or modified will probably be humorous to use against our country's "elite" 47.
    It's like blowing the dust off of a sandwich from the year 1800 and expecting it to taste delicious.

    Post a Reply
  99. Unfortunately, a law from 1799 that has remained unchanged or modified will probably be humorous to use against our country's "elite" 47.
    It's like blowing the dust off of a sandwich from the year 1800 and expecting it to taste delicious.

    Post a Reply
  100. @Shaun Robert Milligan: Your politics are much more worthy or articles than ours. Don't blame the messenger.

    Post a Reply
  101. So it's OK for Congresspersons to break the law if there's a really good reason?

    Post a Reply
  102. So it's OK for Congresspersons to break the law if there's a really good reason?

    Post a Reply
  103. Democrats did the same against Reagan and Bush.

    Post a Reply
  104. Democrats did the same against Reagan and Bush.

    Post a Reply
  105. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  106. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  107. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  108. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  109. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  110. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  111. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  112. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  113. @Michael Brown, I am shocked that there are people as stupid as you. Why is Iran your biggest enemy? Since when is Iran your biggest enemy? How do establish such a senseless ranking? Would the US have enemies if the stayed in their own country and not acted like they fucking own the planet, distributing freedom hidden inside of bombs which after the explosion nobody can find?
    Iran never invaded anyone. Do they like the US? Well, you would not like my country if I went to the US to create a civil war and the US tried that in Iran… TWICE. So please, go fuck yourself while you are spoon fed bullshit on Fox News.
    Your President is elected by the people, if you did not vote for him, tough shit, he is still your President and yes, he does speak for you too.

    As long as you are in agreement with the reason, breaking the law is OK! Fuck you!

    Post a Reply
  114. It has been modified, just not that much because it hasn't needed to be changed. It's pretty fucking clearly written. Your comment is irrelevant.

    Post a Reply
  115. It has been modified, just not that much because it hasn't needed to be changed. It's pretty fucking clearly written. Your comment is irrelevant.

    Post a Reply
  116. It has been modified, just not that much because it hasn't needed to be changed. It's pretty fucking clearly written. Your comment is irrelevant.

    Post a Reply
  117. Really Michael Brown? You need to brush up on your Farsi, since that is US Media bullshit that was debunked, debunked and debunked. What Iran wants gone are the Zionists gone and coincidently the Orthodox Jews themselves are the ones saying the want to eradicate Zionist in Israel.
    If Iran sponsors terrorism in 6 countries, they are newbies since the US sponsors them in every montherfuking country at this moment.

    Did Iran kill 20% of the Iraqi military? Yes, probably more than 20% but they were defending their country when the US employee Saddam attacked Iran. Iran never invaded another country, they took in 2011 a region in Iraq which they had lost during the Iran-Iraq war. The region was worthless with dried up oil fields and the US military in Iraq did not even bat an eye. If it had oil, then yes, everyone would freak out!

    The international community and the US investigators themselves have concluded that Iran IS NOT producing nukes (please repeat that 100 times), they even got rid of the enriched uranium to prove it. Yes, they are on the top of your loooooooooooooooooooooooooogg enemy list, because every single fucking country who disagrees with you, goes on that list. Even US citizens are enemies of the protest too loud.

    You know who has nukes and did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement? Israel!
    You know who does not have nukes but signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement? Iran!

    What more do we want? An reasonable explanation for your stupidity would be a nice start!

    Post a Reply
  118. Really Michael Brown? You need to brush up on your Farsi, since that is US Media bullshit that was debunked, debunked and debunked. What Iran wants gone are the Zionists gone and coincidently the Orthodox Jews themselves are the ones saying the want to eradicate Zionist in Israel.
    If Iran sponsors terrorism in 6 countries, they are newbies since the US sponsors them in every montherfuking country at this moment.

    Did Iran kill 20% of the Iraqi military? Yes, probably more than 20% but they were defending their country when the US employee Saddam attacked Iran. Iran never invaded another country, they took in 2011 a region in Iraq which they had lost during the Iran-Iraq war. The region was worthless with dried up oil fields and the US military in Iraq did not even bat an eye. If it had oil, then yes, everyone would freak out!

    The international community and the US investigators themselves have concluded that Iran IS NOT producing nukes (please repeat that 100 times), they even got rid of the enriched uranium to prove it. Yes, they are on the top of your loooooooooooooooooooooooooogg enemy list, because every single fucking country who disagrees with you, goes on that list. Even US citizens are enemies of the protest too loud.

    You know who has nukes and did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement? Israel!
    You know who does not have nukes but signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement? Iran!

    What more do we want? An reasonable explanation for your stupidity would be a nice start!

    Post a Reply
  119. Thank you for your feedback Des! We aren't exactly an "advanced journalism" outfit, more of a punch you in the face news source for young people. But I will take note of what you said.

    Post a Reply
  120. Scherryl Antoniadis we could start with non-enforcement of Immigration law, or we could use Obama's unilateral executive changes to the ACA (a POTUS has no legal authority to change a law, at all, ever). If you'd like we could also rehash the facts surrounding the NSA basically spying on every American's cell phone and texts and emails with administration approval. Or maybe Obama forgetting to notify congress (as required by law) when he releases enemies from GITMO would count as a violation. I'm guessing that you accept all of the above actions as necessary. That's why you're a lost sheep, bleating a slogan with no understanding of the issues involved.

    Post a Reply
  121. Michael Brown How many countries do the US sponsor terrorism in? more than 6 I guarantee.

    Post a Reply
  122. Don't forget that the NSA spying program was enabled and initiated by Bush Jr. Not saying Obama isn't a scumbag for continuing it, but without the Patriot Act (sickening irony there, eh?), this would not be happening today. Obama is hardly alone in overlooking the Constitution when he can get away with it. That doesn't justify Senators violating the law.

    Post a Reply
  123. Of course, no mention of when the Dems did the EXACT SAME THING during Reagan's term in office…

    If you're going to shill for one party, be men enough to say so. Personally, I think the best way to deal with our Federal Government is #pitchforksandtorches. Historically, nothing changes bad government better or faster than an armed, angry mob.

    Post a Reply
  124. OK, hotheads…pause for a moment and consider this:

    They have five years to go after these guys, and it would be far better to wait after the next election, when they'll have a much better chance of getting them, and they won't have a black guy as a straw man that the Red States and their henchmen can blame everything on.

    While Americans' confidence in Congress is low in general, it's specifically directed toward Republicans and that's going to have a long-term effect until the election; they don't have a fieldable candidate, so the Presidency shouldn't be a problem. HOWEVER, we don't want to rile them up before the next election…we don't want them showing to the polls if they're demoralized and fighting among themselves.

    Literally or figuratively wagging your finger in their collective face is only going to activate them and unite them, while they swarm to their 'cause' like the 'bots they are.

    I want them to pay, too, but I want it all. Them in jail, Citizens United overturned, Improved foreign relations, improved economy for the poor and middle class, etc., and for that to happen,you have to play a smart strategy.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

    Post a Reply
  125. Hey I'm no lawyer, but doesn't "without authority of the United States" become moot as they are representatives of the states and its government?Jus Sayin"

    Post a Reply
  126. Silly lad, don't you realize this treaty involves Russia, China, France, England, Germany, most of the G-8. That's right when Iran's favorite Uncle Putin passes on nuke weapon technology to Iran to spite the U.S. will you sign up to fight? Reread the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the Logan Act and what branch of government negotiates which one doesn't. And lastly, were WE THE PEOPLE informed of the Atomic Bomb before we dropped it on Japan? Were WE THE PEOPLE informed of the invasion of Normandy? And I wasn't even informed when they killed Bin Laden, could you imagine that? WE THE PEOPLE is such a trite phrase coming from tea bag subversives.

    Post a Reply
  127. This is another government shut-down that will blow up in the GOP's face. What's Einstein's definition of insanity? I think the GOP does might be mentally ill.

    Post a Reply
  128. Michael Brown Again, lad, you didn't live through the Cold War. There were also nut bags (on both sides) in the U.S. back then that wanted to fire the first ICBM missile. You wouldn't be on the key board today if people like you had their way. The only reason you believe Iran is such a super threat is because Sean Hannity said they were. Iran a big threat, just like the USSR. Yeah, right.

    Post a Reply
  129. Michael Brown Again, lad, you didn't live through the Cold War. There were also nut bags (on both sides) in the U.S. back then that wanted to fire the first ICBM missile. You wouldn't be on the key board today if people like you had their way. The only reason you believe Iran is such a super threat is because Sean Hannity said they were. Iran a big threat, just like the USSR. Yeah, right.

    Post a Reply
  130. Practice self control, moron. If you can't respond to an adult topic in anything other than a teenage mentality, STFU! I don't deny our foreign policy has created a lot of this. I don't deny that oil and years of US interference and intrusion play a huge role in the big picture. However, Iran wants to destroy Israel and, me as well as most of America (and the WORLD) want to stop them. No, I am not happy with our "foreign policy" over the years and yes we are culpable. But, at the moment Iran is spreading murderous terror around the world and their goal is annihilation of the West, Israel and nuclear proliferation. That trumps all your whiny, liberal rhetoric. In the end, it doesn't matter WHAT pissed Iran off. It doesn't matter that our greedy and aggressive foreign policy (displayed by both the LEFT and RIGHT throughout the years) is a black eye for all American's. It doesn't matter, Bruno that you're a douche-bag who needs to be taught a lesson in respect….what matters is IRAN WANTS TO DESTROY THE WEST, ISRAEL………now, today!!! As a former soldier, I'd be honored to give my life for this cause……could give a f&%$% who started it!!!

    Post a Reply
  131. Al Ceraulo,School Michael Brown!Bravo!!We propped up and shot down Iranian dictators,maybe you're too young to remember that Michael Brown or just like to keep your blinders on.Either way,you're wrong!!

    Post a Reply
  132. Michael: "If the President wants to usurp LAW to bypass the "checks and balances," bypass Congress, bypass THE PEOPLE, then expect Congress to take extraordinary measures to stop him."

    Please let us know:

    1. Which law is the President violating?
    2. Which check and balance is being violated?
    3. How is he bypassing Congress?
    4. How is he bypassing the people?

    Post a Reply
  133. How the hell did the ALL of MSNBC's fan base make their way into one comment section?….all 4% of 'em. Kinda proves my point. The rhetoric you liberal ignoramus' spew is the same shite BSNBC does….. and you too will fail.

    Post a Reply
  134. I don't what kind of attorney you are, but you need to read the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2, two-thirds of the Senate must approve all treaties. The Logan does not apply.

    "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 fact being the US Senate are not private citizens and do have the authority to make foreign policy decisions.

    Post a Reply
  135. Most of these people voted for him in two, that's right, 2 landslide elections. In other words, as you like to say, We The People.

    Post a Reply
  136. Let the billionaires spend there money on their defense its more of their money going back into the system to help pay the deficit

    Post a Reply
  137. Read what the Supreme Court ruled regarding what branch of government has full authority to negotiate with a foreign state, and only that branch of government. I'll save you the time, it's the Executive Branch and only the Executive Branch, because it's clear you haven't read the ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have posted you're nonsense about a co-equal branch. Get a clue. The branches ARE NOT CO-EQUAL in all facets of government. Foreign policy negotiations are strictly by the President. What the 47 subversives did was send a letter with the intent negotiate or persuade a foreign state in a certain direction.

    Post a Reply
  138. Our BIGGEST ENEMY ?? Oh please. That paradigm is obsolete. All this warmongering and polarizing IS the problem! Stop it!! Talk about state sponsored terrorism, look at Washington DC! Look at London! Let's clean up our own house, ok? Your rhetoric is that of an era we must leave behind in order to thrive. Let's move forward, ok? Iran has no bomb, and if they did they would be nuts to use it, just like everyone else in the nuclear club. Oh and did you know who does business with Iran's nuclear industry? Haliburton…they have done so for decades despite the fact that it was illegal for many years…Dick Cheney is a big shot w/Haliburton so he is in fact doing nuclear business with Iran. You're so worried about enemies? Look to the liars and criminals in our government. Those are enemies of the United States.

    Post a Reply
  139. Michael your latest comment betrays your real face…reactionary, not a critical thinker, purely ideological…because rather than talk about facts you are engaging in name calling and having a bit of a tantrum. All these people who have responded to you with real information, and you do not refute any of it, you are just spinning now. How about thinking about the FACTS and responding?

    Post a Reply
  140. Mike Jolin you are of course welcome to participate, as a Canadian, as our nearest neighbor…and even if you lived thousands of miles away you'd still be welcome. I do think it odd that someone would think a person's nationality would somehow prevent them from knowing anything about the US Constitution.

    Post a Reply
  141. Would you say the same to Democrats who violate the Second Amendment?

    Post a Reply
  142. Brandon, Prez plans ALL ALONG were to SIGN AN AGREEMENT without congressional oversight. He only hinted that he was going to bring it back to Congress for a looksee AFTER his "plot" was folied. I-L-L-E-G-A-L ! Yeah he can negotiate…Yeah, he can do it without Congress, but he cannot sign a deal ON HIS OWN…..PERIOD! btw….Here is an article (complete with resource links) of ALL of Obomba illegal activities. Certainly more reliable than, "The Anti-Media."
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/222704929/Ted-Cruz-Legal-Limit-Report-4

    Post a Reply
  143. Brandon, Prez plans ALL ALONG were to SIGN AN AGREEMENT without congressional oversight. He only hinted that he was going to bring it back to Congress for a looksee AFTER his "plot" was folied. I-L-L-E-G-A-L ! Yeah he can negotiate…Yeah, he can do it without Congress, but he cannot sign a deal ON HIS OWN…..PERIOD! btw….Here is an article (complete with resource links) of ALL of Obomba illegal activities. Certainly more reliable than, "The Anti-Media."
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/222704929/Ted-Cruz-Legal-Limit-Report-4

    Post a Reply
  144. Yeah, Al……those were the "good ole days." What do you say about your boy, now? Will be considered the worst President ever, to be sure…and that just burns you libs up!! It boils down to one question; despite our shady past, who do you fight for in a East V West war? If you said "East"…or you, "had to think about it more than 5 seconds"….YOU are the enemy….. and I am a soldier for the US of A ! So, what side are you on? It's the only question that matters on the precipice of war. Don't know? Bang!

    Post a Reply
  145. So this is actually all about your hatred for Obama. Now I understand. You are driven by hate. Sad for you. You don't do anyone any good that way. Obama is as corrupt as any politician…that's not even up for debate AND that's not what this is about. Try to focus.

    Post a Reply
  146. Apparently so… since Bush's first term in office. ;)

    Post a Reply
  147. Apparently so… since Bush's first term in office. ;)

    Post a Reply
  148. Yeah, when liberal hot heads respond with hate, yeah, I get a little human. I don't HATE anyone. But we have a bad President who holds no regard for the people, our fighting force or the constitution. I've enough posts and resources above for you to see where I stand, emotions aside.

    Post a Reply
  149. Yeah, when liberal hot heads respond with hate, yeah, I get a little human. I don't HATE anyone. But we have a bad President who holds no regard for the people, our fighting force or the constitution. I've enough posts and resources above for you to see where I stand, emotions aside.

    Post a Reply
  150. The best part is they can no longer run for public office.

    Post a Reply
  151. The best part is they can no longer run for public office.

    Post a Reply
  152. Evidence?….Isreal and the US has nuclear weapons, are they getting rid of them or still building more? You speak of terrorist: 'someone who tries to force their ideas on others violently……….afgan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Granada, etc; just follow the Isreali-Ameican blood trail.

    Post a Reply
  153. Evidence?….Isreal and the US has nuclear weapons, are they getting rid of them or still building more? You speak of terrorist: 'someone who tries to force their ideas on others violently……….afgan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Granada, etc; just follow the Isreali-Ameican blood trail.

    Post a Reply
  154. Good luck carrying out "citizen's arrests" in this case. I believe you'll find yourself federal/state/municipality arrested and facing very real and potentially expensive charges. Please protest the ignorance and hypocrisy in as large numbers as you can muster, but please don't do anything stupid. One aggressive person accosting a senator looks bad, thousands protesting hypocrisy and injustice looks quite good.

    Post a Reply
  155. Good luck carrying out "citizen's arrests" in this case. I believe you'll find yourself federal/state/municipality arrested and facing very real and potentially expensive charges. Please protest the ignorance and hypocrisy in as large numbers as you can muster, but please don't do anything stupid. One aggressive person accosting a senator looks bad, thousands protesting hypocrisy and injustice looks quite good.

    Post a Reply
  156. Although I appreciate you drawing this to my attention, your article begs the question, why in site others to do your bidding? If you think citizens arrest is the best coarse of action then go do it.

    Post a Reply
  157. The State dept seems to disagree with you: In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

    The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

    Post a Reply
  158. As a soldier of the U.S.A. please remember your oath: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States." Please stop acting in this disgraceful manner and putting shame to the rest of our troops.

    Post a Reply
  159. Michael we haven't had a GOOD president in your lifetime, or mine! Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter (great Ex pres!), Ford , Nixon, Johnson…that string at least have ALL been under the thumb of the weapons manufacturers. The Biotech industry has also bought into the gov't…you are acting as if Obama is somehow not part of that line serving the same masters and in that you are wrong. You have been told how terrible he is, and he is, but he is just the next iteration in a line. Your anger is misdirected! You would do well to look at who is behind the scenes, behind the republicans and the democrats.

    Post a Reply
  160. Dude you have Green greens for your profile picture and you're calling him 15?

    Post a Reply
  161. Actually, Nick, you seem to be having a lot of difficulty with the language. For example, "grammatical mistakes" instead of "grammar mistakes," and "I know right." What does that mean? As in "from wrong?" And finally, there's that very embarrassing "lol," which does sound awfully teenage.

    Post a Reply
  162. Baruch, I am not ignorant of the fact that this very thing has been going on, in one form or another since the "birth" of our nation. I see power, greed, dishonesty on all sides. Honestly, I wish I didn't know what I know about out "transparent" folks in DC. The "straw" has been the attack on the constitution, the blatant (and unprecedented) violation of the "rule of law" and abuse of Executive power. see, http://www.scribd.com/doc/222704929/Ted-Cruz-Legal-Limit-Report-4. He had planned all along to SIGN an agreement with Iran WITHOUT congressional oversight. That, too is illegal.

    Post a Reply
  163. Yes yes. We're sorry you can't buy cruise missiles.

    Post a Reply
  164. As a veteran of the Gulf War and a retired Non com……at ease, Lifeguard. You're no soldier!

    Post a Reply
  165. Hunter Caskey What unit are u you in now and your rank?? You say you are a soldier, yet you work "as a lifeguard" and live in Hanoi, Viet Nam….is that right? ARE YOU ANOTHER POSER????

    Post a Reply
  166. If your argument is " well the president usurped the congress, by negotiating a treaty with Iran, our biggest enemy" then you're a complete moron, and unaware of who is in charge of foreign relations, the state department handles foreign affairs, and that runs right through the Whitehouse, the republicans have twice tried to usurp his power, in the last two weeks, again, the state department, under John Kerry, has tried to keep us out of another war, by negotiating through sanctions, and promises of lifting those sanctions, if Iran plays ball, and limits it nuclear enrichment program! We're not promising them free access to Israel, but Netenyahu made it sound like Iran was a threat to us as well, our only threat to this country, is a rogue congress, who thinks ok to commit treason, I will personally take great pride in arresting John Boehner, myself, along with the other 47 traitors, Obama isn't perfect, and has punched the constitution in the nuts a couple times, but these dirt balls have used it for toilet paper, and have finally shown just how out of control they are! If the Democratis tried this under GW., the rednecks on here, would be calling for Nancy Pelosis ovaries in a jar! GOP Hypocrites run congress with abossolutely incompetency, and need to answer for their crime!

    Post a Reply
  167. The President should not be sending his operatives to Israel to try and undermine and influence a foreign election. That is also criminal.

    Post a Reply
  168. And Barack violated the Constitution by bypassing congress.
    And THAT's been around since 1776!

    Post a Reply
  169. If you took the time to carefully read my post you will notice that I never referred to myself as a soldier. I said "please remember your oath," distinctly referencing yourself, sir. Also, "our troops" is an expression used by military and citizens alike. One does not have to be affiliated with the U.S. military in order to use that term. If a teacher, doctor or lawyer were to say "bring our troops home" they would certainly not be referencing themselves and neither am I in this case. Since you seem to not be very perceptive to reason, however, I will make myself clear; I am not affiliated in any way with the U.S. military. I support all members of the military and the work they do. I was simply urging you to exercise some degree of judgement and respect before undermining the dignity of your institution.

    Post a Reply
  170. You do realize that Your man Reagan signed a similar nuclear agreement with……You guessed it….IRAN. Don't be an idiot. Turn off FoxNoise.

    Post a Reply
  171. Well would'nt want your advice on foreign policy thats for sure michael and you think your country has nt been sponsoring terrorist or killing 20% of someone elses population or it could be more and how many nuclear weapons does Israel possess compared to Iran if they even have any at all your just guessing like everyone else michael and Israel has been waring with its neighbours since it was created say 1947 michael your comments are a good example to people on how not to be.

    Post a Reply
  172. Considering the Iranian Foreign Minister seems to know more about our Constitution than the 47 members of the GOP elected to uphold said document, I'd think a single Canadian who found their way to this page just might have a grasp on it. Hell, I'd probably vote for him.

    Post a Reply
  173. Wrong, Hunter…….watch your vernacular. It read like you were referring to yourself as a soldier.
    "As a soldier of the U.S.A (you should) please remember your oath." Could have used a conjunction in the middle.
    BTW, I don't need a civilian (and a child) to tell me about my oath, but since you mentioned it, "foreign and domestic" includes treasonous Presidents. Now, go be a lifeguard.

    Post a Reply
  174. What kind of bullshit is that? He broke the law so we can! ? With that logic let's all go out and out and break some law! Stupid, racist, sour grapes, conservative, bullshit!

    Post a Reply
  175. "President Obama, who himself has shown little to no respect for the Constitution, seems to have no interest in prosecuting the war mongering 47, so that’s up to us to figure carry out. Citizens arrests are on the table; these 47 men committed felonies and should be charged just as any one of us regular folks would be when we commit a crime. Who should we arrest first?"–Arrest the one who has committed the most offenses–> Obama. You said it yourself–Obama has no respect for the Constitution, and he has proven this time and again.

    Post a Reply
  176. Michael Brown I think you have Iran mixed up with Israel ,,, Time will tell , when the truth is finally revealed ! Justice will be served !

    Post a Reply
  177. Nick Bernabe Don't waste your time with deaf , dumb and blind , morons , It is a great article

    Post a Reply
  178. The NSA was around long before Bush Jr.. They've been around so long, they were even spying on Dr. King.

    Post a Reply
  179. If that's the case they should have already charged Obama,Clinton,Holder and a bunch others with crimes against America. But we all know that will never happen

    Post a Reply
  180. I personally feel the article mostly comes across like a petulant child throwing a fit about trying to get someone in trouble. I also feel the need to point out that your repeated statement that they violated the constitution is incorrect, as the logan act is a statute, and a desuetuded one at that. I'm sure you violate similar desuetuded laws almost every day.

    Post a Reply
  181. War mongers?!? For not wanting nuclear Iran? Ludicrous!! Anyone that supports dems/reps are at the heart of the problem. They are the offense and the defense of the same team. The game is screwing over "We the People"! This was obviously written by a dem.

    Post a Reply
  182. Not only are those members of the senate dismissible from office but everyone in government. Article 2.4 of the U.S. C institution reads "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" which suggests everything done thy government since this nation's forming is, for the most parts, unconstitutional. Look at how the Constitution is interpreted at http://the0natureboy.hubpages.com/hub/The-U-S-Constitution-The-Supreme-Law and you will see every government oversight group violates the constitution daily.

    Post a Reply
  183. "However, 47 members of the US Senate — all Republicans — have clearly violated the Logan Act."

    BS. Go read the interpretation of the Act when George McGovern went to Cuba and met with Castro back in the 70's. In short, the Act wasn't meant to apply to elected officials carrying out their duties.

    Post a Reply
  184. "In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

    The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

    Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn…" (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.

    Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[8]"

    Post a Reply
  185. McCain should be arrested for elevating Sarah Palin. But I suppose there is no law so oh well.

    Post a Reply
  186. So you agree that Republicans have broken the law. Will you now still pretend to be so outraged at Obama for supposedly doing so?

    Post a Reply
  187. Shaun Robert Milligan Nationalist dinosaur, the purifying wrath of an asteroid god cannot arrive soon enough! You are addressing people who probably know more per capita about our constitution than we do, even though they have no need and no business with that knowledge.

    Post a Reply
  188. I think you're vastly overestimating the numbers of "them" but there is nothing wrong with taking the safe road until a more rewarding risk is calculated.

    Post a Reply
  189. You're way too optimistic. The point of action against these politicians should at least partly be to hurt them financially. If the Act can be given any teeth (questionable), I think they'd pretty much all take a deal and end up eating their costs. No one should get arrested (plus I don't think they can be), no big event like that. Just put them on trial for the violation with the understanding that if the prosecution prevails, the sentencing would proceed from the guidelines outlined in the Act. The scenario will play into paranoid delusions of the particularly insane GOP members, all of the people who already believe it. Very little impact there.

    FNC viewership isn't going to triple. Limbaugh's audience isn't going to triple. That's just a delusional prediction. They'll get bumps from curious people and fairweather fans. The campaign could play out like you say, or it could play out with the Republican nominee seeking election while under indictment for a federal felony crime and the news (even FNC) and other candidates constantly reminding us of that. You'd probably max out the GOP base and find out just how badly the party is actually dying, but that only helps you if the Democrats bloc doesn't show up. If they have an exciting candidate – whether or not they distance from Obama – the Dem block will show up. I don't see how a dying party that pisses off every voting block except straight white males is going go anywhere at the federal executive level with or without legal problems energizing their base.

    Post a Reply
  190. If we're going to arrest these members of Congress for ignoring the Constitution and breaking the law, then we must also arrest the Great One, Barack Obama! He has ignored the Constitution and broken the law on several occasions. Or could the fact that the Senators are all Republicans be why so many idiots are signing the petition? I bet if the Senators were Democrats there would be no petition and this article probably wouldn't have been written!

    Post a Reply
  191. There are a few typos…..hardly immature……but fair to say that you disagree and rather than attack the information or the accuracy thereof…..attack a few errors……really mature…lol

    Post a Reply
  192. Your assessment of the law is incorrect……Congress does not have the authority to DIRECTLY undermine ongoing negotiations because they do not "agree with the president" I do not like Obama either…..but the Neo-Cons have a list and we now know about it and KNOW that it actually has NOTHING to do with the national Security of the United States which makes them trying to push us to war illegal as well… Intelligence from the CIA and even the Mossad have refuted Netanyahus claims…..the same claims he has been making for 15 years…… They will have the bomb "any day now" ….while Israel first stole the Nuke secrets FROM THE US……they are NOT our friends…..I may not agree with Obumma on nearly anything….but at least he knows they are not our friends….

    Post a Reply
  193. The Logan Act has no precedence over the U.S. Constitution which does allow that all actions, and treaties must be consented by Congress, as it is also stated in this article defending the Logan Act. [The president has the power to make treaties with foreign governments, though the Senate must approve such treaties by a two-thirds majority.] Finally, the president has the power to approve or reject (veto) bills passed by Congress, though Congress can override the president’s veto by summoning a two-thirds majority in favor of the measure. See Duties of Office: http://www.britannica.com/…/presidency-of-the-United-States… No laws were broken by the Senate because no Treaty was at the forefront of their message to Iran.

    Post a Reply
  194. Obama was already in violation of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, and was in secret communication with Iran, which is also wrong. He has 27 articles of treason ready to be lodged against him as soon as our scared Rinos decide to file, Scotus is just waiting! Oh Brittanie you need to start reading a more reputable website not some liberal rag!

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>