Job requirement for new Speaker: Commit to suing Obama to stop Iran deal

Getty Images

Congress must enjoin President Obama from affording Tehran sanctions relief before the Iranian nuke pact is implemented—as early as in mid-October—lest the process of releasing upwards of $120 billion of sequestered funds in Asian banks not be triggered. Investors know it’s not a “done deal,” even if the media maintain that fantasy.

A half-dozen generic legal approaches have been detailed in eleven heavily-hyperlinked analyses by this author dating back to May, culminating on September 29.  

Three approaches invoke (10th Amendment) states’ rights protections, and empower (real or potential) victims of Iranian-funded terrorism (privately and publicly).

Florida sanction law should spark a state-level filing comparable to the multi-state ObamaCare challenge.

Victims suing privately could seek “standing.”

Legislation preventing Obama from waiving or lifting sanctions until Iran pays restitution (to be voted upon on September 30) would have to survive Obama’s veto.

Some strategists feel establishing a voting-record could help Republicans electorally, but tying-up money is not preferable to Congress challenging the underlying pact.

Therefore, that House Republicans are considering suing Obama for withholding the side deals on Iran’s nuclear program provides a strategic foundation for bipartisan, bicameral litigation involving the Senate.

Discounting personal ambition, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) parlayed the race for new House leadership to channel burgeoning angst—shared by the 70 percent of Republicans who are conservative—triggered by watching do-nothing leadership allow Democrats to enact their ideological agenda (view @ 3:00).

To jumpstart a more robust rhetorical and action-oriented campaign, he proposed filing litigation during the September 29 closed-door House Republican Conference that he had secured to strategize the House-GOP’s future.

He had successfully forced House leadership to change its agenda on September 10 to hold the successful vote to charge Obama with skirting congressional review of the Iran pact [formally, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)]. Officially recognized is the Obama administration’s failure to fulfill explicit reporting requirements of the Corker-Cardin Act [formally, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA)].

Afterwards, Congress had inexplicably fallen into inactivity, perhaps due having become prey to the “capitulation complex” led by Dems and the media, despite its having standing based on the anti-ObamaCare suit.

They must urgently pursue three generic causes-of-action and ignore obfuscatory naysayers.

The pact is a “treaty” rather than an executive(-legislative) agreement because it is a long-term diplomatic covenant, rather than a short-term commercial deal (see Gibbons v. Ogden).

The senate can act collectively if it invokes the “nuclear option” or as individuals if 34 senators (a sufficient number to prevent ratification of a treaty) were to challenge the process that had negated their votes (see Coleman v. Miller). More than 34 senators voted in April to claim it is a treaty.

Skeptics falsely claim the filibuster tradition “constitutionally” protects the minority and would be mooted by a presidential veto (view @ 3:30), forgetting the facts that this threshold is not in any founding document and that the president cannot veto a senatorial resolution yielding a lawsuit against the president.

The INARA was passed under false pretenses and, therefore, cannot be applied to the JCPOA. The gravamen of the Supreme Court’s opinion that perpetuated ObamaCare was its interpretation of “congressional intent” and, in the instant case, the administration repeatedly—and falsely—told Congress that any pact ultimately assessed under the INARA would not afford Iran relief from conventional arms sanctions (view @ 1:12).

Yet, the final pact lifted U.N. Security Council resolution #1929, vividly recalling how Nixonian claims were subsequently declared to have been “inoperative."

The INARA’s 60-day “disapproval clock” has not yet been triggered because the administration has not divulged two “secret” documents as mandated by the INARA and because proof that the JCPOA has been signed on July 14, Bastille Day, pends.

Although Obama’s officials claim they are confidential, Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general for safeguards at the IAEA, said they aren’t.

As a result, the future of faux self-inspections arrived on September 21, with these “selfies” endorsed by the White House and the IAEA chief.

Legislative vehicles would include H.Res.410 that recognizes the pact as a treaty and S.Res.251 that also recognizes the lack of INARA-compliance. Both should be amplified by citing faulty “informed consent” and could be amplified if the JCPOA was never signed.

The libs on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” have acknowledged Obama’s foreign policy failures and, thus, potential-speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) must behaviorally place Obama’s failed foreign policy into a form of robust “receivership” by endorsing litigation…ASAP!

Sklaroff is a Republican Committee person. He can be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.

More in Foreign Policy

At one year mark, Iran deal has already made world safer

Read more »