Why the ‘We the People’ Logan Act online petition is unintentionally hysterical.

You know what my favorite thing is about the We the People “File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement” petition?

  • It’s not that the author of it doesn’t understand that the Senate is explicitly empowered by the Constitution to advise and consent (which includes ‘withholding consent,’ for the benefit of progressives and other buffoons) in the matter of treaties.
  • It’s not that the author of it doesn’t even understand the difference between ‘violating the Logan Act’ and ‘treason.’
  • And it’s not even that every person who has signed this petition has outed him or herself as a feebleminded, pig-ignorant would-be monarchist who is absolutely desperate to abandon the responsibilities of a citizen of the Republic and instead bow his or her servile neck to a mortal king.

No, my favorite thing about this petition is that it hit the 100,000 threshold. By the White House’s own rules, this means that there has to be a response.  I can’t wait to hear what it is. Spoiler warning: not even Barack Obama is enough of a fool to try to arrest the Senate.  I personally think that the White House will just ignore the petition entirely.  I mean, what are the monarchists gonna do if Obama does that?  Pout?

Moe Lane (crosspost)


9 thoughts on “Why the ‘We the People’ Logan Act online petition is unintentionally hysterical.”

  1. Given the number of petitions that have hit 100,000 that Obama has ignored .. I fully expect this one will be no different.
    (did “build a death star” hit 100,000?)

    1. Yes, and the WH actually responded. Stupidly saying that they were concerned about deficit reduction and thus wouldn’t build a Death Star.

  2. I’d say its funny that these people didn’t care about Nancy Pelosi going to kiss Assad’s feet and other such actually objectionable undermining by Democrats because they’re BDS-addled nutjobs, but its really just sad.

    1. Fen’s Law: The Left believes none of the things it lectures the rest of us about.

  3. The Constitution doesn’t define “Advice and Consent”; by usage, it means the Senate approves treaties post-facto.

    But nothing in the words of the Constitution prevents the Senate from breathing new life into the word “Advice”.

    I mean, President Obama seems pretty enthusiastic about Constitutional innovation. Is anybody surprised that the Senate might copy his example?

    1. The Senate has failed to approve treaties before – the Kyoto Treaty during the Clinton Administration is an example. There was no vote in favor of it and it died in the Senate.

      Any treaty has the force of law (the US as one speaking for all of the states to another foreign government) and two branches have to approve it. And even then the treaty has to pass by the third branch, for no treaty can alter the US Constitution – seriously, could a treaty be signed and ratified that would, say, remove the right to a jury trial?
      And treaties exist until the legislature abrogates that treaty – no Congress and no President can bind future Congresses or Presidents in perpetuity.
      Yes, any agreement with Iran that does not get ratified by the Senate is an executive agreement and is as frail as as any administration; and any treaty can be undone if the Congress and the President want to do that.
      (If anyone has a good amount of money, please send copies of Magruder’s American Government to unbelieving people who appear to have been asleep during high school.)

Comments are closed.