No. The act is very specific. It only prohibits communication with a foreign government with intent to "defeat the measures of the United States". What is so hard to understand about that? Cotton could have written a letter to the American people trying to defeat the measure, no problem. He could have written a letter to Obama trying to defeat the measure, no problem. But he wrote a letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran trying to defeat the measure, which is a huge problem as you have witnessed.
It was not comprehensive, but it is true. http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm The President is entitled to make: 1) -- responses to foreign events 2) -- proposals for legislation 3) -- negotiation of international agreements 4) -- policy statements 5) -- policy implementation 6) -- independent action Congress is entitled only to make: 1) -- resolutions and policy statements 2) -- legislative directives 3) -- legislative pressure 4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials 5) -- informal advice 6) -- congressional oversight Don't forget that Cotton's letter is not from Congress, it is only from the Republican party. 47 signatures gives it no official Congressional status whatsoever. It was not an act of Congress and no votes were taken.
Put it in, if you like. They have much authority, but not to interfere with the Executive branch's exclusive foreign policy privileges. Congress simply does not have the authority to respond to foreign events, negotiate international agreements, implement policy, or take foreign policy action independent from the President.
Choose your wording carefully. No law was broke. No more than many congress men/women have done over the years.
Please list for us all of the correspondence with enemies that congressmen have written with intent to defeat a measure of the United States. Good luck with that. Don't forget that Cotton's letter is not from Congress, it is only from the Republican party. 47 signatures gives it no official Congressional status whatsoever. It was not an act of Congress and no votes were taken.
You assume intent and even though you want to believe it so bad, you have zero proof of intent. Just like the Clinton's don't lie... Fucking sucks don't it?
I knew that you couldn't back up your absurd previous statement. Now you are just blathering in frustration. Come back when you have an argument you can support.
