By Charles C. W. Cooke
Friday, March 13, 2015
Donna Brazile, a political activist who is at present
serving as the vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, would very
much like it if the president of the United States would arrest half of the
Senate. Yesterday afternoon, as the American workday was coming slowly to its
close, Brazile added her voice to a growing chorus of leftward-leaning zealots
who are calling for the imprisonment of the Republican caucus within the
nation’s upper legislative branch. “File charges against the U.S. senators” who
wrote to Iran, Brazile exclaimed excitedly. Why? Because they’ve violated the
Logan Act, of course.
It is fair to say that until last week most Americans had
not heard of the Logan Act. Now, it is all the rage in progressive circles. As
of today, 270,000 people have signed a White House petition on which it is
contended that the 47 Republican signatories to Tom Cotton’s letter of
constitutional clarification “committed a treasonous offense when they decided
to violate the Logan Act” and should therefore be sent to jail. Such as it is,
the case against Cotton et al. is reasonably straightforward. First, the
petitioners note that the Logan Act of 1799 explicitly prohibits unauthorized
citizens from engaging in diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments.
Next, they suggest without evidence that the GOP’s letter did just that. And,
finally, they conclude that its sponsors are guilty of a felony. Is it time for
Cotton to wear orange?
Unsurprisingly, the answer to this is “No.” Indeed, one
almost has to feel embarrassed by the scale of the petitioners’ credulity. For
a start, the Logan Act almost certainly does not apply to open letters that are
penned by representatives from the Senate — which body, we might remember,
enjoys a constitutionally enumerated role within the nation’s foreign policy.
And, even if it did apply, the inevitable legal challenges would swiftly
prevail. In a widely cited analysis, American University’s Steve Vladeck has
proposed both that the act is “unconstitutionally vague” and that it would be
“unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on
such content-based restrictions on speech.” Brazile’s bluster to one side, it
is no accident that, in its entire 216-year existence, the measure has never
been used to convict anyone. It will not be used in 2015.
Over at the Huffington Post, Monica Bauer notes bluntly
that she has not seen “a single Constitutional Law professor say this is a real
thing,” and “for good reason.” That reason: It isn’t. Instead, Bauer suggests,
the charge is being drummed up as “click bait for liberals” by the more
irresponsible voices within “left-wing media” — that is, by cynics who have not
set out to “educate or help,” but only “to raise money.” Bauer is correct, of
course. And yet her explanation is somewhat incomplete. Certainly, the need for
“click bait” can account for the supply of witless citations. But we might ask
what is justifying the demand. In theory at least, the Logan Act is precisely
the sort of stifling, censorious, Pentagon-aiding throwback that our friends
within the progressive movement should reflexively loathe. Why the affection?
The simple answer, I’d venture, is that Barack Obama is
the president, that he still enjoys something of a cult following, and that,
politics being what it is, there is an inbuilt tendency for partisans to define
“treason” as the act of disagreeing with leaders they happen to like. Add to
this phenomenon the widespread belief among Obama’s apologists that he is the
first president who has been expected to remain within constitutional bounds —
and, indeed, that he is the first president to have been “disrespected” — and
you will see that the claim that his opponents are not so much dissenting as
plotting becomes all the more seductive.
For what it is worth, I consider the letter to have been
something of a political, if not a legal, blunder. Had the missive been
addressed to everybody rather than to the leadership of Iran, we would likely
all be talking about something else today. But there is a material difference
between unwise and illegal, and an even greater contrast between “dissent” and
“treason,” and the attempt of the angry to transmute the clumsy maneuvers of a
co-equal branch into the dangerous shenanigans of a traitorous fifth column is
an invidious one indeed.
In their endless pursuit of statutes that would prohibit
and punish “hate speech,” America’s would-be censors often cite another dark
moment in American history. “Sure, you can speak,” they cry; “but you can’t
shout fire in a crowded theater!” Knowingly or not, by repeating this canard
advocates are endorsing a dangerous line of legal reasoning — one that was not
used primarily to protect the public but rather to uphold a most rank
despotism. Most people do not realize this, but the “fire in a theater”
construction comes not from a case involving a stampede or a panic, but from an
infamous 1919 Supreme Court decision in which the nine justices refused to
overturn the conviction of a socialist activist named Charles T. Schenck, who
had been imprisoned for handing out leaflets that urged Americans to defy the
military draft. Unanimously, the Court decided that any speech that could lower
morale — and thus, in some way, damage the war effort — was liable to be banned
under the Espionage Act. This, I do not need to confirm, is a disgraceful idea,
and we would all be better off if our public figures ceased to cite its authors
approvingly.
Awkwardly for those who have been shouting it over and
over and over again, the Logan Act carries with it a similar shame. Like
Charles Schenck before him, George Logan was a pacifist from Pennsylvania who
was determined to use any peaceful means he could to dissuade his brethren from
descending into warfare. In 1798, Logan embarked on a private trip to France in
the hope that an effusive display of friendship might help prevent what looked
to be an impending war between that country and the United States. Quite what
impact actually Logan had is debatable. Either way, he quickly attracted the
ire of the federal government, which, angry at the hero’s treatment to which
Logan had been treated in Democratic-Republican circles, sought to imprison
him. In both its genesis and its application, the Logan Act was a sibling of
the authoritarian Alien and Sedition Acts — that execrable series of
restrictive measures the Federalist party saw fit to impose on the new republic
before it could hit its stride. Taken together, the statutes sought to instill
in a newly free country the ugly principle that the rights of the individual
all but disappear in wartime.
Happily for the republic, the election of 1800 put Thomas
Jefferson into the White House and effectively rendered both measures moot.
George Logan was elected to the Senate in the same year, and continued to
agitate for peace. In the last half-century, meanwhile, the Supreme Court has
taken upon itself to ensure that the Charles Schencks and George Logans of the
world are protected from the overzealous machinations of ignorant, partisan
nuts. How peculiar that Donna Brazile and almost 300,000 of President Obama’s
keenest admirers would seek to send us reeling in the other direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment