Forget taking Carter's passport away , he should be imprisoned. The Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

But since we have no real leadership in this country, taking his passport away will have to do

@ Atheling

I am not so sure that passport revocation would be a wise move.   After all, your own Thomas Paine argues for guarding one's enemy "from oppression".  American citizens should be free to travel of their own accord.

A more appropriate response to this kind of nonsense of free-lance diplomacy would be a Congressional rebuke, or some sort of Sense-of-the-Congress Resolution to that effect, re-affirming the principle that only the duly elected government in place should engage in 'foreign policy' (subject to the appropriate Congressional Committees oversight).   Narcissistic free-lancing should be exposed for what it is: harmful to the country's broader interests.

It is doubtful, though, that Pelosi&Reid&co would go along with this.   Their predecessors probably would have, in earlier times when civic duties were better understood in a nonpartisan fashion.   Even on this website we have a regular contibutor (Laughland) who used Ramsey Clark for a foreword in his book.  Whereas Carter is demonstrably an extremely-naive narcissist, Clark truly hates his own country and wants to hurt its interests.  

I've just conducted a google search and it turns out that the word already exists.However, I can honestly say that I didn't know this when I posted my original comment. The next time I attempt to 'invent' a word, I'll google it first, I promise.

@ Atlanticist

Where did you get this term of "manchild" first?  An honest answer please.  Or did you 'invent' it, in the sense of being the first to apply it to Jimmy Carter? 

It is a well-chosen term.  Carter's free-lance 'independent negotiations' with Hamas in recent days, illustrate again what an incredible 'ego' children can have, and what a dangerous manchild he remains on the world stage.   There will be a heavy price to be paid for this betrayel of 'democratic values'(***) and lack of 'modesty' on the part of a prominent member of the western 'leftist' church.  It is in effect proof that democracy may be dying in the West.

***Imagine other (out-of-office) prominent public figures on the Right of the political spectrum 'negotiating' with America's enemies while Jimmy Carter was president and struggling with numerous difficulties.  Did it happen?  It did not.    But today it does, and it means that political debate and struggle does no longer "stop at the water's edge".  It means that ideology today trumps democracy in many minds

The only person who could stop Tony Blair would be Bertie Ahern from Ireland, who's also mentioned as a top contender. The reason Blair is seen as the prohibitive favorite now, is that he's perceived to have been such an unstoppable force (and a successful one) on the European scene-- having won 3 elections in the UK and brought Britain arm-in-arm into the EU.

The reality, of course, is that Blair more than any other figure is responsible for the destruction of Britain by 1,000 small cuts of the PC knife. 500,000 Britons leave the UK every year while 600,000 people come in, mostly from the poorest countries of the Third World to leech off benefits. All this while Britain's public services, transportation, schools, cities, infrastructure crumble around everyone and the UK itself becomes a Third-World nation. IOW Britain is heading toward self-destruction faster than any other Western nation-- faster even than Canada, Australia or (much of) the USA, all of which have many of the same self-destructive PC policies, especially Canada and Australia.

Bertie Ahern is the only other possible candidate for POTUSE who could overtake Blair. He's also seen as a senior statesman who was eminently successful in Ireland, both at winning elections and strengthening his nation.

Also, since Ahern would be coming from a smaller country like Ireland-- as opposed to the "Big 3" of France, Germany and the UK-- he's a more palatable "compromise candidate" than Blair would be for the majority of EU nations.

I think the whole idea of an EU Presidency is just dumb-- the whole point of that union, supposedly, was to provide the advantages of economic integration and defense while, at the same time, retaining the sovereignty and distinctiveness of the various nations therein. Europe is a more interesting place precisely because of the variety of nations it contains.

Maybe Ahern would be the best choice as he'd be less inclined to some of the extremes of Blair. Although the best thing for Europe in general, would be for Brussels to be weakened as such a stifling force. A loose confederation would be the best of all possible options-- a centralized EU would be the death knell for many of Europe's countries, most especially Britain itself.

Yeah, that's what Europe needs right now, a spaced-out Manchild running the show. And the fact that kappert would support this...  comes as no surprise to me.

I agree with Vincep1974 and with Traveller. If we could combine the two, Europe would have a wonderful president.

Speaking as an unrepentant Yank, if Europe has to have a union and that union has to have a president, Tony Blair would probably be your best choice.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why independent nations are submitting to this recreation of the USSR without a fight or even a popular vote, but that is not my business.

Given the policies of the EU on immigration, freedom of expression and appeasement to all things Islamic, I can only predict that it will all end in tears...and blood...and America will, once again, be called upon to clean up the mess.

I haven't forgotten, and each and every time he displays that quality, I'll be one of the first to commend him for it. In fact, this seems the perfect opportunity for him to show that openmindedness. How? Well, if he is prepared to support my call for a referendum, and subject to the result going in his favour, I would then be prepared to support his campaign for a presidential election. Hell, I'd even be prepared to agree IN ADVANCE to vote for T.B. Doesn't that sound fair to you?  

@ Atlanticist

I want to speak on behalf of 'ethical pete'.  He lives in a different cultural environment than you (and me too), but he has shown on a number of occasions that he is not close-minded and that he is 'open' to arguments.  I suspect that there was a time that he would have preferred Gerhard Schroeder (or even Jacques Chirac) for the EU 'presidency'.  Acceptance of Blair represents massive 'evolution' on Pete's part, but I doubt that he sees him as a "hero".  

Agreed that not submitting the EU constitution to a referendum is an anti-democratic monstrosity.  Nevertheles, in the world as we find it, it would still be preferable to have an election for the 'European' presidency, rather than designation in a smoke-filled room by 'leaders' and their sycophants. So, 'Pete' makes sense here.

If we're all too stupid to vote in a European referendum, what makes you think we're smart enough to vote for the best candidate in a presidential election? Wait, perhaps you're right, and if you are, then the likelyhood is that we'd all  end up voting for your hero, Tony Blair.

I still think Blair would make an excelent choise. Why not a presidential election in Europe?

I hear Jimmy Carter is looking for a State to lead