It's not really illegal to send letters to people, not even to people in other countries. There hasn't been a treason execution in decades, so I doubt they'd be shot, or thrown in jail, or even that big of a fuss to be made of it.
Let's read the law again, shall we?
/>
>>>>>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.
That's pretty cut and dry.
Execution is not on the table. The punishment is up to three years in prison. I doubt that will happen either, it would do more harm than good. But boy would it be satisfying!
If we take it to mean that any type of interaction with foreign governments count as treason, than we could never interact with the British, or French, or anyone. If we take it to assume an extremely vaguely worded stance, than every politician should have gone to jail by this point. And what of diplomats, or foreign correspondents? What of those who have friends in other countries? What about "any citizen" acting with the British and setting up trade and what have you, or conspiring to do something say, economically wise, that would be unfavorable to the U.S.?
By that measure, we should all by this point be in Jail. And "to defeat the measures of the United States", would imply that any time a measure was defeated, we were conspiring towards treason. The basic two party system means one side is always trying to defeat the other inherently, so the idea that nothing we as citizens can do can defeat measures proposed by the U.S. would mean we are all traitors.
I think, what you have to understand is, this is intended to apply to big things.
It would be like calling bullying torture, or an annoying person a rapist.
From wiki: "The only known indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice John Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot"
I think this is just grasping at straws to try to attack Republicans. Here is another article, hopefully explaining this. If we take it to mean it's vaguest terms, than it simply violates 1st amendment rights in any case, which would make it unconstitutional, meaning if it was ever applied that way, it wouldn't fit in line our must fundamental laws.
Edited by Manoka, 10 March 2015 - 04:59 PM.
