To the Congress of the United States and the American People,

I rarely find within myself the anger and sadness that I feel today. I have recently learned that 47 senators have written an open letter to Iran warning the state of Iran that any deal between our chief diplomat (the President), and Iran, would be dismantled as soon as the president vacates his office in 2016.

I am disgusted by this act.

Not at their disagreement with the President, as that is a God-given right, but at their blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, the President, and the United States herself.

I list their offences as follows:

They have ignored what their party is supposed to represent. They ignore the opinions of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson by attempting to entangle our Legislative Branch in foreign affairs.

They have ignored the Constitution, which grants diplomatic powers to the Executive Branch, except in matters of war and binding treaties.

These 47 senators have taken it upon themselves to actively disrespect the office of the President by ignoring the fact that he was voted into office by a majority and is entitled to the powers granted to him by the Constitution.

But above all, they have knowingly and willingly damaged the ability of the United States to conduct diplomatic affairs. They have openly weakened the United States as a whole, and should be held accountable for their actions.

If Ronald Reagan had been President today, this would have been considered an act of open treason.

I call upon all of these senators to speak for themselves, to defend these acts of destruction.

Senators, you have irrevocably damaged United States diplomacy for years to come.

I end this with a simple question: How do we lead the world united, if we are not first united ourselves?

Carson Alexander Doyle

* * *

Dear Mr. Doyle,

The Logan Act has been codified into federal law for over two centuries. A felony, it 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."

Sadly, for our nation, this is the legacy of the scourge called the Tea Party. No longer content with craven racism they've put on constant display for the last six years, they've now descended into outright treason.

Brandon Baines

Signal Mountain

* * *

If we fail to heed “what is written” according to the Bible and the Constitution we then open ourselves to the consequences of our actions.

Mr. Doyle, I’m with you in your disgust with the senators, but not in writing the letter to Iran but in their capitulation and surrender of their Constitutional powers.

Our government is not to be one dictator who operates in enacting legislation on his own whereas Barack Obama has with so many actions from health care, immigration and now this treaty with Iran has done so with nothing but “lip service” opposition from the Congress.

The founding fathers understood and addressed the reason that there are three branches of our government to ensure checks and balances so as one branch or person would not dictate their will upon the people.

If you took the time to research online you can easily find the following instead of taking what the minions are being fed by the media who stand behind and seek to further the lawlessness of this president.

From the U.S. Senate website is the following: The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treaty making process.

If those who we elect disregard the laws by which our country was founded on then sir, we have lost our country.

Jay Reed

Falling Water

* * *

Tom Cotton and the 46 other Republican senators signing the letter to Iran, have incredibly damaged the foreign policy of the nation.

Never, in my memory, have the Democrats acted as irresponsibly in foreign policy matters, when they were in control of the Senate.

This letter should be immediately and publicly withdrawn. All 47 Republican senators signing it should apologize to the president and the people of the United States for this political stunt. This letter is more in line with high school level antics than the serious foreign policy of the nation.

I am proud both Tennessee Republican senators had the intelligence and maturity not to sign the letter.

Tim Gobble

Republican

* * *

Carson Alexander Doyle asserts (incorrectly) that the senators' actions are a "...blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, the President, and the United States herself."

However, the Constitution reads, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make Treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Therefore, the senators are operating within the confines of the Constitution and exercising the authority it grants them.

Mike Romines

* * *

Mr. Doyle, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Gobble,

It appears you are not entirely familiar with the situation or our Constitution. Mr. Doyle you reference Article 2 concerning the Executive power to make treaties, stating, “They have ignored the Constitution, which grants diplomatic powers to the Executive Branch, except in matters of war and binding treaties,” while clearly dismissing the fact that the whole controversy is about a binding treaty that the current administration is attempting to negotiate. Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” By my count two thirds of the Senate is 66 senators, thus leaving any possibility of the treaty being ratified 13 votes short.

Mr. Doyle, you also state that, “If Ronald Reagan had been President today, this would have been considered an act of open treason.” I disagree, during the Reagan presidency there were two incidents that in my opinion are far more egregious than the open letter directed at the Iranian government explaining the inner workings of our constitutional republic and the ramifications of or Senate disapproving. A little history that you, Mr. Baines and Mr. Gobble need to be aware of:

Incident one, in 1983. According to Paul Kengor in his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Ted Kennedy tried to circumvent Reagan's diplomatic policies with Russia when he dispatched Senator John Tunney to seek face to face meeting meetings between Kennedy and General Secretary Yuri Andropov to help with negotiating a deal to ease U.S. sanctions against Russia in exchange for help with his 1988 Presidential bid. All documented in a KGB letter discovered in the Russian archives by Tim Sebastian from V. Chebrikov to Y.V. Andropov.

Here is the content of the letter that was never denied by Kennedy and has never been debunked:

Special Importance

Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV

Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee

V. Chebrikov

Incident 2 1985. Senator John Kerry did not agree with President Reagan's position in Nicaragua to support the Contra opposition so he traveled to Nicaragua and met with Sandinista President Daniel Ortega in an attempt to influence U.S. policy.

As usual, progressives and those leaning to the left only have a problem when conservatives do something. They never seem to take issue when it is progressive/liberal doing it. The main difference is that progressives/liberals try and keep their deeds secret and hidden in the dark

For comparison here is the content of the Tom Cotton letter:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL Senator John McCain, R-AZ Senator James Inhofe, R-OK Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC Senator John Cornyn, R-TX Senator Richard Burr, R-NC Senator John Thune, R-SD Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA Senator David Vitter, R-LA Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS Senator Jim Risch, R-ID Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS Senator Rob Portman, R-OH Senator John Boozman, R-AR Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA Senator John Hoeven, R-ND Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI Senator Rand Paul, R-KY Senator Mike Lee, R-UT Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH Senator Dean Heller, R-NV Senator Tim Scott, R-SC Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO Senator James Lankford, R-OK Senator Steve Daines, R-MT Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD Senator David Perdue, R-GA Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK



James Montgomery

Rossville

* * *

Mr. Montgomery, the basis of your argument seems to be that you think that what the President and Secretary of State are negotiating is a "treaty," it is not. What the senators did is a direct violation of the Logan Act, which 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, 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.”

They certainly had no authority and acted irresponsibly in sending their ill-conceived letter. I wish that they all would be fined, imprisoned or both, but I am sure that nothing will happen and they will continue with their obstruction and arrogant disregard for protocol and respect for the office of the President and the Executive branch.

John Fricke

