Yes, the letter was disturbingly unprecedented. What does it say about the Republican Party when 47 of it's members in the Senate are willing to undermine the President and undermine American prestige in the interest of their own partisan agenda and primary for the benefit of a foreign government. Republicans have become so disrespectful of the institutions of government they put the loyalties to the party above their loyalties to the nation.

Republicans have become dangerous and irresponsible. Given the opportunity to take power and further undermine election law and democracy to assure their continued control they will take that opportunity. In their minds, if they are always right and democrats always wrong then a one party dictatorship (cloaked in the superficial trappings of democracy) makes complete sense.

"the contempt with which it treats the president,”

He's contemptible.

The problem with that argument is that in 1987 no Senators acted beyond their constitutional authority. A group of radicals didn't send a letter to a State in treaty negotiations with the executives as the Republicans did in this case. Congress, Mr. Crowley has the constitutional authority to cease funding a war.
The 47 Senators that were signatories to the Iran letter were in clear violation of the Logan Act and should be indicted.

This seems to be someone trying desperately to create some false equivalence...

Let's take it item by item...
Orrin Hatch blasting Democrats for interfering in foreign policy in 1987 by passing the Borland Amendment.

Uhh, I hate to break it to Crowley, but the Borland Amendment was actually the same amendment passed three times. The first time was actually in 1982, when the House passed a bill UNANIMOUSLY!!! The bill barred the U.S. from providing financial or military aid to the Contras (perfectly legal, as the House is supposed to control the purse strings). President Reagan signed the bill, presumably indicating to Congress his agreement to obey the law. In 1984 it was expanded to include barring the CIA from spending money to help the Contras.

In fact, the repassage in 1987 was solely to remind the Reagan Administration that they were BREAKING THE LAW when they kept routing money and weapons to the Contras. Democrats in 1987 weren't interfering in foreign affairs, they were were reacting to a, what do Republicans call Obama today?, a monarchical tyrant who was ignoring Congress and the law, and spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money contrary to the law of the United States!

Democrats in 2006 seeking to force a withdrawal from Iraq? Why not? Bush wasn't negotiating a treaty with anyone, nor was he involved in any foreign policy with Iraq. By 2006, it was obvious to one and all that we'd been lied into a war of choice against a nation that was no threat to us, or really anyone any longer in the Mideast. Yet Bush was seeking an ever expanding war, remarkably similar to Vietnam, and Democrats wanted to use their Constitutional power to authorize war to end a war we didn't need and shouldn't have been in (especially as it was also becoming increasingly obvious the Bush Admin was worse at winning a peace than they'd been at winning a war, appointing political hacks into positions intended to help establish a free Iraq...read the Matt Taibbi stories on this is Rolling Stone, if you haven't yet).

Pelosi going to Syria? Again, it's all in the details! The 47 Republicans are directly contacting the Iranian government to tell them they can't believe or trust Obama, because nothing he does will ever be approved by Congress, and they'll do all they can to revoke any agreement he makes with Iran. In other words, they're openly and directly working to subvert treaty negotiations (a clear violation of the Logan Act, FYI). Pelosi, by contrast, may not have had the Bush Admin's approval to visit Syria but:

a) she notified them in advance of the trip (while the 47 never told the Obama Admin until Iran had the letter);

b) she was given a formal State Dept. briefing on the U.S. position, and she did not deviate from that position (while the 47 are literally undermining any treaty Obama might get);

c) she was accompanied by Rep. Hobson (R-OH) (while the 47 had NO Democratic support);

d) Rep. Hobson later stated that while many in the media and Bush Admin attacked Pelosi, not one person ever criticized his involvement;

e) Per Hobson and the Bush Admin, representatives from the Bush State Department literally participated in EVERY meeting Pelosi and Assad ever had (needless to say, there was no Obama Admin involvement in the 47's letter);

f) just a few weeks prior to Pelosi's visit to Assad, three Republican House members had visited Syria and met with Assad, with no complaints from the Bush Admin, even though what they said was the same as what Pelosi said...

Notice there's considerable difference here...Her visit was open, known well in advance, included both political parties, and did NOT put forward two different messages.

Wright's involvement in Sandanista-Contra negotiations? Uhh, I hate to break it to Nancy Kassenbaum, but the Logan Act bars citizens from interfering with negotiations between the U.S. government and foreign powers! The Contras are not the U.S. government; the Sandanista are not the U.S. government. So exactly what negotiations was Wright interfering with? He may well have been interfering in negotiations between the government of Nicaragua and the Contra terrorists, but so what? There is no law against that! Again, repeating - the GOP 47 are DIRECTLY interfering between the U.S. governments negotiations with Iran and the Iranian government, contrary to the Logan Act's exactly wording!

I'll end by pointing out that the "gold standard" of who is supposed to be doing what was established in the U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export Corp. (1936) case, in which Justice Sutherland said:

"The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative
of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the
Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the
Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As
Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of
Representatives, 'The President is the sole organ of the nation in its
external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.'"

" “What’s unusual about this — but completely in tune with what’s happened in Washington in recent years — is the contempt with which it treats the president,” Mann said."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And when Pelosi went to Damascus..I guess that was an act of Love

"Nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public!" H.L.Mencken, 1922. "100% American means 99% idiot!" George Bernard Shaw.

Another false equivalency proposed by the right. Anything to avoid looking in the mirror.

So, to illustrate how this is not unprecedented, the author trots out examples of prior acts that are markedly and fundamentally different.

In a related video, John McCain and Sean Hannity offer two examples of what it is like to have zero credibility on Middle East issues: http://bit.ly/TwoBoneheads

Republicans to Iran - this deal would not be binding
Left wingers - You're a traitor
Lurch Kerry - this deal would not be binding
Tell me, loons. Is Lurch a traitor?

What is rather humorous about the Pelosi visit to Syria is how modern and captivating she found him. She really was conned. She should admit today that end run around Bush looks pretty stupid.

Why did Pelosi go to Iran and blow Assad back in 2007? Kind of overstepped her bounds, eh?

This is TREASON!!!!!

Nah.

So, did you like just skip the whole article to post that? Maybe you should read it.

yawnnn...

It's just too easy to show "contempt" for a contemptible President. I'm glad those Senators sent the letter.. No sense letting Iran think we have a dictator here that calls all the shots and rules by executive fiat! He needs congress too.

Iran knows full well that we have a Congress. Just because moronic Americans don't have a clue about Iran, doesn't mean they are equally ignorant about us.

You really think Iran doesn't know how our political system works? All that letter really said is that once this level-headed president is out of office, there is a chance that Iran will be dealing a gun-ho, big headed maniac.

Please, don't let any of these facts get in the way of Liberal Logic! Go Senator Tom Cotton!

Show me a letter signed by a majority of Democratic Senators addressed to a leader of foreign enemy trying to undermine a sitting President of the United States. Then we can say this letter had a precedent.

Will a democrat communicating and offering favors to the Soviets count?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/...

Probably not.

So basically what you're saying is that- Nancy Pelosi negotiating with Syria, Jay Rockefeller negotiating with Iraq, John Kerry negotiating with the Sandinistas, and ol what's-his-nuts with the Cubans in the 1970s , physically going to other nations to undermine a sitting president, is totally different because "letter?" Are you retarded, willfully ignorant, or both?

If you want a letter so bad, here- http://www.forbes.com/2009/...

Want another?

Rekt, son.

No one "asked." They declared he doesn't.

Once you open the barn door..... You do realize the message of unreliability that these traitors gave the world about our Nation, don't you?

This is just one more example of one party whining about something they've done themselves in the past.

And your post is just another Liberal attempt to justify, excuse, and white-wash Liberal violations of both Constitution and law.

You are out of your mind and high on GOP fumes... If unconstitutionality and violation of law could be proven, your "tort reform" Party would be filing motions and suing faster than John Boehner can inhale a bottle of Merlot.

With 'blood in the water', the media and America completely focused on the LATEST Obama Administration Scandal / Hillary Scandal/Crime and Obama on the desperate edge of signing a deal with Iran that would allow them to eventually have a nuclear weapon, the frantic, panickin gLiberals have just launched this pathetic 'E-bola' diversionary tactic, trying desperately to get the media off this latest massive Liberal scandal.

1. Congress sends a Letter to Iran informing them that even though Obama might be negotiating a nuclear treaty, it still has to be ratified by Congress...and if it is not in the best interest of the Unitesd States or our allies then they will not do so.
- Did it matter / make any difference? NO.
- Should they have sent the letter? Since it had no impact, probably not. They should have sent it to OBAMA, becasue he is the only one to seems not to know how our government works.

2. The Hillary Scandal:
- It has already been proven Hillary VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION as Secretary of State. Artcile 1, Section 9B states no government employee can accept titles, gifts, or cash from foreign operatives or governments, which she did as Secretary of State. In fact, she reportedly collected MILLIONS. This is not only a 'Conflict of Interest' - it is a CRIME / 'Constitutional Violation'.
- Hillary says she broke no rules regarding her use of 2 e-mail accounts. This is a LIE. Both the State Department and WH has alredy declared that her doing so were violations of their individual policies. In 2009 Hillary sent out a State Department-wide cable warning State Department Employees NOT to do this...in 2012 the US ambassador to Nairobi was fired for doing so...and the State Department says they actually warened her to stop doing so.
- Obama says he never knew about it, heard about it from the news, and then was exposed as a liar...again (surprise, surprise)...by Earnst who told the press that Obama not only knew about it but had e-mailed her using her persoal accounts.
- Initial inspeaction of Hillary's encryptian codes / device reveals it was all set up wrong, so all of her e-mails amounted to a National Security Threat.
- Hillary insists that SHE is the only person who can see her personal e-mails, the only one who can determine which e-mails can/should/will be released, has admitted to deleting a LOT of e-mails (MONTHS worth are now missing), and has publicly declared she will refuse to comply with a supoena demanding she hand over her personal e-mail server to an independent party for inspection / review....but insists she has nothing to hide.

UNLESS the Liberal media rides to the rescue and does some MAJOR non-reporting on Hillary and some major 'water-carrying' for the Liberals on the 'Iranian Letter' non-story, the Liberals are going to need a MUCH BIGGER diversion to sidetrack the media/civilian focus on Hillary's crimes.

In 1987 Democrats took over foreign policy to help a ruthless communist dictator in Nicaragua against President Reagan's wishes.
In 2015 Republicans send a LETTER to Iran clarifying their stance to try to save Israel from annihilation against Hussein's wishes.

Save the communists but let the Jews die? Shows you where the liberals are mentally.

Contras weren't angels, but they never developed nuclear weapons for the purpose of admittedly wiping out an entire nation. You might not see a difference in that, but you also might be very pro communist/Sandinista also.

In Summary: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Pelosi's trip to Syria didn't undermine ongoing negotiations. If anything it was an attempt to create negotiations.

This letter is the opposite. The GOP is declaring that Iran is going to get bombed.

While Obama is 'doing what he needs to do', Iran is openly mocking Obama and declaring how Obama is 'so desperate' to get a nuclear treaty signed that he is 'begging' them to sign a deal and is willing to give Iran nearly anything they want.

We have an ex-community Organizer / Muslim Sympathizer who has demonstrated either his complete lack of US / World History (completely false/wrong interpretation of the Crusades, christianity, how ?muslims' helped 'found' this nation, etc) - who has already helped acknowledged terrorist organizations take overthe governments of our allies and win their own country with the support of OUR military at Obama's order, and he even has Islamic Extremist/Terrorist -associated people as 'advisors' within his administration.... and we are supposed to just sit back and allow him to 'do what he needs to do'?!

Let's chalk this up to the GOP being dumber then dirt, and not fit to govern.

Oh - so the action was not 'treasonous' or 'unprecedented' as much as it was done by Republicans...

Ah yes...another perfect example of today's"journalists" sick and twisted obsession with "balance" (no matter how absurd) and false "equivalence" (even more misguided and absurd in this story> The only thing that they got right was the following, which sums up this entire shameful ordeal...

"Experts say the Senate GOP’s Iran letter may be an unprecedented breach
of foreign policy protocol both in its form and its boldness. But....."

Everything after the word "but" is merely an exercise in absurdist false equivalency and is unrelated and totally irrelevant to what these Senators did here. It has no historical equivalence. It has and will continue to badly backfire on these idiots in the Senate and could damage our standing in the world, just for a childish and naive political stunt, in their endless attempts to undermine and damage this President. They have and will continue to fail at that, as they always have for the last 6 years.

Protocol? Now that's fking funny. Now you know why Politico is going broke.
holding strong to the leftist piece of sht socialist platform, politico
simply adds to the list of cowardly, treasonous
statements that will go down in history as the low point of journalism in
America. Staffed with high school essay winners and a leadership whose closest
affiliate is the Occupy crew, Politico remains a beacon to all those who
believe in filth, lies and American decay. Protocol....heheh. The entire Obama/Clinton
interaction is a breach of protocol.....Hey sleazy glasser.....you need to scream louder.

So what you're saying is that this has never happened before. That was a long-winded and roundabout way of making the point, listing out all the other times it didn't happen.

i agree, Pelosi and these 47 Senators should be prosecuted under the Logan Act

So in so many words what the 47 senators did was rather unprecedented as nothing cited here comes close

Didn't John Kerry sit down with the North Vietnamese during that war ? Then there's that whole Winter Soldier thing where he railed against the US govt.....in the name of peace of course ;)

Wow, Crowley, your "reporting" is horrendous. No one ever said that Congress can NEVER get involved in foreign policy. (I feel stupid even having to explain that to someone who is supposed to be a knowledgeable "reporter" on US politics). In every instance you give, the opposing party in Congress intervened AFTER they saw the effects of a US President's foreign policy and believed that it had to be stopped. Nothin' wrong with that!

In this case, the Republicans have NO CLUE what the deal with Iran might be. They are acting in total ignorance.

Oh yeah, Journalism 101: here is some evidence of my claim, right from the mouth of the Republicans:

“I think it’s pretty obvious that the president does not want Congress
to have any say-so over the bad deal that we are certain he seems to be
inclined to make,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the
majority leader, who was among those who signed the letter.

Does that sound like a Senator who knows what he's talking about? So, the Republicans have no idea what the Iran deal is, they have no idea what its effects are (it hasn't even been negotiated!) and they STILL undercut the President....now, go do your little research and show us examples like that!! Apples and apples, not apples and oranges, please....

It IS unprecedented in the modern era.....