I was just wondering what would happen if there was a grassroots effort to have the new Speaker of the House investigated and charged with a felony.

Summary
The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:
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, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Probably nothing. Members of Congress have routinely visited foreign governments with or without the consent of the current Administration. I suspect in her case (and in most cases) it might be hard to prove the following:

Nothing would happen. The Republicans won't fight the Dems on this and the Dems certainly won't investigate one of their own. Besides, several Republicans have also gone over to the Middle East and you know if this were pushed the first ones to get investigated would be the Republicans.

I think we are witnessing the demise of the United States of America's constitutional government. I think we are witnessing the beginning of one party rule and a Democratic Party Dictatorship.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

You're under the assumption the Ms. Pelosi has read the Consitution, and has the comprehension skills to understand it... She isn't aware of the fact that the Speaker of the House has no control over Foreign Policy.


"Never interrupt an Enemy when they're making a mistake". Napolean sure got that right!

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

Oh, I agree that members of congress have routinely visited other governments without the express permission of the President and in most cases what you say would be true. But I don't think it would be hard to prove that Madam Pelosi didn't just go to Syria without the President's permission. She went against the expressed wishes of the President. Likewise, I don't think it would be difficult at all to prove that Syria is involved in "disputes" and "controversies with the United States". After all, it was really common knowledge. Don't you think?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Let her go. She is going to hang herself, and her party, real soon. Don't think her antics won't come up in the next election?

__________________
Chicago green, talking bout Black Lebanese.............

Well, I think the big difference is in whether or not someone has been given approval to make those trips.

Here's what one editorial has to say about it.

AT LAW

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

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

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

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

Well, first, she doesn't need the wishes of the President. And, second, I agree that Syria is involved in "disputes" and "controversies with the United States". That is common knowledge. But the Logan Law says that
So, the correspondence has to be in relation to the disputes or controversies...that, to me, would be the hard part to nail down.

Sure as soon as put ever person ever takking money from AIPAC in jail too.

Oh? If not the President, then who authorizes such trips? The only other logical authority would be the Secretary of State who is charged with foreign affairs. If President Bush said he didn't want her going I have serious doubts that Secretary Rice approved her trip.

It has already been determined that she not only misrepresented the United States, but Israel as well.

From the Washington Post
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well."

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

This was not merely a trip to visit troops in theater or to visit with a friendly nation. This lady took it upon herself to not only interfere in foreign affairs with governments we are in dispute with but to lie to the leaders of that government about what the leaders of another government said to her. And she did it in defiance of the President.