The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Kill the Iran nuke capitulation by litigation

Plentiful are lamentations regarding President Obama’s enhancement of Iran’s military. Rare are proposals that could block Obama’s marginalization of Congress. The judiciary could rectify any legislative-executive conflict –reasonably and constitutionally.

If an insufficient number of Democrats join Republicans to yield a 2/3-vote rejection in both houses, the Senate should sue against implementation of the pending agreement between Iran and the “P5 + 1” Powers, filed after issuance of Obama’s veto, within the 10-day override period.

{mosads}Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would claim that May’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 failed to address potential termination of conventional-arms sanctions, as well. Thus, this “treaty” between the United States and Iran requires a 2/3-vote Senatorial ratification.

Involvement of other countries and the U.N. does not affect this paradigm, for nuclear disarmament pacts concluded by America–including the 1968 multilateral pact and the 2001 unilateral pact–have been ratified as treaties. And India’s pact with America traversed multiple levels of approval, including the Hyde Act, which was passed by both houses by more than a 2/3-majority; all entities were aware prospectively that it exclusively dealt with nuclear energy.

In May, I predicted this avenue could arise, while railing against morphing the Corker-Menendez bill into anything resembling the Corker-Cardin bill:  “Concern that a constitutional crisis looms abounds, for any clash of powers of allegedly co-equal branches may ultimately reach the SCOTUS in a fashion comparable to the current litigation promulgated by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) against unilateral Obamacare rule changes by the administration.”

I amplified upon it (again publishing in The American Thinker) after having recognized that the “legislative intent” of the Iran bill was focused on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact that was expanded to allow lifting of conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought — and was granted — this specific concession only during the fortnight prior to when the pact was inked in July (per universal news reports).

All along, Obama had eschewed raising any other issues beyond nuclear disarmament (such as prisoner release) during these negotiations. Furthermore, Secretary of State John Kerry subsequently claimed introduction of such confounding variables would have prompted Iran to seek “even more concessions, threatening the entire deal.”

The focus of this bill was upon relief from “crippling” economic sanctions, and not upon restrictions on Iranian purchase of armaments; two key sections thereof (“qualifying legislation” and “definitions”) were unaltered in its original and amended versions. Relief from conventional-arms sanctions was not contemplated by Congress, even within annexes that might subsequently be approved. This conclusion is not a byproduct of mind-reading, for the 2004 essay of two Democrats exemplifies how such Congressional deliberations focus on nuclear-related issues. (Note also how Obama’s deal contravenes its four action-items.)

Buried on page 11 of the pact, however, is termination of a set of U.N.S.C Resolutions, among them #1929, adopted in 2010; its eighth paragraph comprises air-tight restrictions on providing conventional military aid to Iran.

Opponents of this pact must adopt a crisis mentality.

Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and terrorism expert, corroborated these concerns but concluded forlornly that “the best we can do” is to pass a Congressional resolution denoting the pact as a “treaty” and then ceasing to fight further following an anticipated veto:  “Congress can lay the groundwork for the next president to regard Obama’s Iran deal as a mere executive agreement, reject it, take the position that it has no binding effect, resume enforcing whatever sanctions can still be meaningfully enforced, and make Tehran understand that all options remain on the table to deal with its evil regime.” Seemingly ignored are irrevocable damages–such as releasing $150+ billion to the most active worldwide terrorist-regime–would have already transpired.

Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, asserted “When Obama betrayed his pledge and went to the Security Council on Monday, he gave Congress an opening to reconsider its position, ditch the restrictive Corker-Cardin law and reassert the Senate’s treaty approving authority.” Her proposed remedy was comparable to that of McCarthy, whose essay she cited:  “Rather than invoke Corker-Cardin, Congress can pass a joint resolution determining that the deal with Iran is a treaty and announce that pursuant to the US Constitution, the Senate will schedule a vote on it within 30 days. Alternatively, Congress can condition the Iran deal’s legal stature on the passage of enabling legislation–that requires simple majorities in both houses.”

Neither columnist tackled the logical consequences of defying Obama by defining the pact as a “treaty.”

A lawsuit must be based upon the “legislative intent” criterion that was determinative when the SCOTUS validated ObamaCare. This filing would jointly seek a temporary restraining order, for the lawsuit reasonably could prevail and, otherwise, implementation of the pact would render it moot. Disapproval of any component of the pact would invalidate the entire agreement because neither the bill nor the pact contains a “severability” clause.

Thus, based upon public statements issued by the executive branch, the legislative branch adopted this bill–emasculating black-letter limitation of presidential hegemony–under the pretense that it would only deal with nuclear-warfare, and not conventional-warfare.

Obama will predictably ignore rallies, documentation of deceit, and targeting of individual legislators; respectively, he will rally his base, continue to lie, and extort vote-swappers. And Kerry will continue to vilify Jews and Israel, Iran’s genocidal target.

Therefore, just as the House’s litigation challenges ObamaCare’s overreach, the Senate should restrain a lawless POTUS. The judicial branch must ultimately issue a landmark decision that will rebuke Obama’s autocratic “legacy.”

Sklaroff is a physician-activist and may be contacted at

Tags Boehner John Boehner John Kerry Mitch McConnell

Most Popular

Load more


See all Video