Bet her return flight lands at Gitmo

So Pelosi committed a treasonous felony, eh? The calls for her resignation must be deafening. Waxman must be preparing his investigations as we speak (no doubt he would if he could; where does he stand in the successor hierarchy, anyway?)

"U.S. v Pelosi." One has to like the sound of that. But what do you say, QG? Does she have to be impeached first?

QueensGuy replies: Why, that's a heck of a good set of questions, CG, and I happen to have a bit of time and a free Westlaw password, so let's take a crack at it.

First, I think the statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because the words "defeat" and "measures" -- as used in the statute's "to defeat the measures of the United States" -- probably "are not abstractions of common certainty and do not possess a definite statutory or judicial definition," as discussed in the only case substantively interpreting the statute, Waldron v. British Petroleum.

But as any good court should (and the Waldron court did), let's try to decide without reaching the broader constitutional objection if we don't need to. Here's the only freely-available, non-crackpot analysis of the statute I could find. I think the relevant precedent is Senators Sparkman and McGovern's trip to Cuba, where the State Dept. took the position that the executive having authorized travel to Cuba after learning the purpose of the trip took them outside the scope of the law. Presumably the same is true of Senator Pelosi and Syria, just as it was for Sen. Wright's trip to meet with the Sandanistas, etc. Unless, of course, she went there and did something different than she had said she intended to do when getting her visa. . . . Hmm, too bad there's nobody to call her, her aides, her travel agent, and the doctor who gave her the malaria pills to testify about whether there were discrepancies. Maybe that wacky CG has a point after all? Nah. Pain-in-the-arse congresscritters wandering the globe acting the fool with our enemies and accomplishing nothing are practically a hallowed institution by now. Why mess with it?

Anyway, I certainly agree with the sentiment behind the law, as I've already expressed, and I'm wondering whether anyone ever considered at the time using it againt ol' Hanoi Jane.