Jared Kushner just flagrantly violating the Logan Act multiple times. Will anything come of it? Doubtful.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    He is trying to influence Saudi-US diplomatic relations, which we all have a First Amendment right to do.

    He isn’t “negotiating a contract”, because only agents of the US government can negotiate contracts with the US.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      What you quoted literally says it’s banned. I mean “with intent to influence” is right there in the text you quoted. Did you even read it?

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it’s directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans “influencing” someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.

        There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people “flagrantly violate the law” every day.

        • kevindqc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Interesting that his law, signed into law by a founding father no less, is an anachronistic law, but the constitution is supposed to be rock solid and the law of the land. Looking at you, second amendment

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Our interpretation of the First Amendment has undeniably changed a lot over the centuries. The Sedition Act, also in 1798, sent someone to jail for calling the President “not only a repulsive pendant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor, but…in private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent.” Such a prosecution would be a non-starter today.

            It’s sad that the Second Amendment seems to be frozen in time, for now.