To stop the Iran-nuke deal: Sue Obama
© Getty Images

Legislative proposals intended to stop the Iran-Nuke deal are suddenly flourishing, but omitted from the public/private strategizing is their final common-denominator:  the Senate must file an injunction ASAP against implementation of this capitulation until its legality has been clarified.

Enjoining President Obama should be based upon the just-announced decision that Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) can sue him over Obamacare. This precedent-setting order has established the capacity for Congress to attain “standing” to challenge executive fiat.


The major new proposal is to supplant the disapproval resolution by doing nothing, seeking to cancel any House vote on the Iran nuclear agreement because of undisclosed “side deals.” This is based upon a triad of articles by former federal-prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, the most recent of which asserted “Senator Ted Cruz Is Right: the [60-day notification] Corker Law Period for Congressional Review of the Iran Act Has Never Begun.” It was enhanced by other commentaries, including that of Jerome M. Marcus, Esq. in the Wall Street Journal, and is certainly justified.

This last-minute initiative was promoted by the Freedom Caucus of the House, conservatives who have prompted the leadership to plan to hold three separate votes on the deal:  disapproval, assertion that Obama failed to uphold Corker-Cardin by withholding the secret-agreements, and blocking Obama from lifting sanctions.

The latter article in The Hill and an earlier op-ed in the Washington Post “buried the lede,” however, literally in their last paragraphs. The former ends:  “In addition to forcing uncomfortable votes for House Democrats, GOP leaders’ decision also opens the door to a lawsuit against the White House” by the House or by a private party. The latter ends:  “If the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.”

This core-concern was unearthed and promoted, subtly, in the privileged resolution filed by Rep. Roskam (R-Ill.) that ultimately directs the House Clerk to seek such documentation from Obama and, in the interim, to freeze the sanctions. Roskam ends his filing (which is not yet online) with a mandate that BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerRift widens between business groups and House GOP Juan Williams: Pelosi shows her power Debt ceiling games endanger US fiscal credibility — again MORE report how he plans to implement its provisions, again suggesting—without stating—intent to seek injunctive relief to ensure enforcement.

A fundamental filing is the declaration that the document constitutes a treaty, per Rep. Gohmert (R-Texas)]. On the one hand, the House cannot direct a separate body, the Senate, to act in a prescribed fashion; on the other hand, the House’s declaration would necessitate the Senate function accordingly.

This, in turn leads to Sen. Cruz (R-Texas) having challenged Congressional leadership at the anti-deal rally to fulfill its pledge to do everything possible to block it, targeting both Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell [R-Ky].

The Senate must invoke the “nuclear option” to overcome the threat of a filibuster of this deal that would, essentially, provide Iran its “nuclear option.” This can be accomplished by “a simple majority vote (on the non-debatable motion to table the point of order), by admitting the motion to proceed to a vote on the pending rules change proposal, [enabling] a simple majority to bring about a vote on the proposal itself” (Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules, page 14).

The Senate would then pass a resolution stating the deal is a treaty by a simple-majority vote, recognizing that Obama mistakenly referred it for approval under the Corker-Cardin Act. It would then defeat the measure under its advise/consent role.

The prognosis that the Supreme Court would uphold any facet of this Congressional initiative is enhanced by recalling its having overturned Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in June 2014. Indeed, two Obamacare decisions are potentially dispositive, the aforementioned granting of standing to Speaker Boehner and the June SCOTUS decision based upon (some would claim to have been contrived) “congressional intent.”

{The reader is advised to review a prior essay, with 40 hyperlinks encompassing all relevant facets of this distressing deal. It also elucidated additional issues, including exploration of whether Obama/Kerry would abide by a Supreme Court Order and why it is mandatory to file suit prior to expiration of the 60-day review-period.}

Some feel the motivation behind these political maneuverings was Obama’s objective to bolster Iran’s ability to supplant America’s involvement in the Middle East, notwithstanding Iran’s hegemonic conduct.

A personal prognostication is far more sinister for, by threatening traditional support for regional allies, Obama would then feel emboldened to attempt to garner a second Nobel Prize by reviving a moribund “two-state solution” (aided and abetted by the U.N. Security Council). He would then force Prime Minister Netanyahu to withdraw to the 1967 cease-fire lines regardless of the illegality and impracticality thereof, while ensuring the Israelis would not be able to bomb Iran’s burgeoning nuke industry.


Sklaroff has litigated against implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry, against the creation of health-insurer Highmark, and against public funding of two stadiums in Philadelphia.