The House Must Sue to Block the Illegal Iranian-Nuke Pact:

Endless Lamentation Betrays Cowardice

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

It is excruciatingly nauseating to listen to storied pundits decry the Iran-Nuke Capitulation and then fail to explore what might be done to stop its imminent implementation.

They claim the next president can fix the problem but, in the interim, upwards of $150B will have enriched the #1 global funder of terrorism.

Andrew C. McCarthy has chronicled efforts by Sen. Ted Cruz—detailed in a letter he wrote to Sen. McConnell—that concluded the pact could be derailed by targeting bankers.

Such congressional initiatives to impede the deal are admirable, but even the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Terrorist Designation Act [S.2094] introduced by Senator Ted Cruz—intended to maintain constraints on foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations—fails to undermine the entire pact.

So too are attempts to tie-up monies to benefit victims of Iranian terrorism—such as that by Congressman Patrick Leo Meehan—and efforts to empower states to maintain sanctions.

Indeed, it is even more exasperating when speaking privately with those in-the-know who claim that all that can be done is to monitor the situation.

They fail to explain why anything substantive can be envisioned, when abject violations have already been ignored by both America and the world community; as anticipated, the whitewashed IAEA-report—which proves Iran lied about its nuclear program—was approved.

And it is ultimately frustrating the hear legal experts claim that impending “gun control” executive orders can be enjoined—just as have immigration encyclicals—while this approach is studiously ignored with regard to the existential threat facing [1]—Israel, [2]—America, and [3]—the planet.

The House has already declared—in a nonbinding resolution passed four months ago sponsored by Rep. Peter James Roskam—that approval of the “Deal” cannot be invoked under the Corker-Cardin Act because of the lack of full disclosure.

After former-Speaker Boehner recognized this vote had laid the foundation for litigation, Rep. Louis Buller Gohmert introduced a follow-up resolution that provided a legislative vehicle for empowering the House to sue (having declared that Obama’s default rendered the Corker-Cardin review process moot and that this pact should be treated as a treaty).

There is no alternative:  The House must stop President Obama from implementing the Iranian-Nuke Pact…ASAP!

Now that key ambiguities have been clarified, it is possible to delineate the “what, why, where, when, who, and how” of this challenge to Western Civilization.

WHAT is the JCPOA?

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is now said to be a “political commitment,” an “understanding” between the United States and a foreign entity, the constitutionality of which has gone mostly unexamined among academics, government officials and the courts.

WHY would Obama be able to implement a document that no one has yet to sign?

This consistently-lawless POTUS would again ignore the other two branches of government, pushing boundaries in this realm as he has whenever he has wanted to avoid oversight.

WHERE has a “political commitment” been recognized?

Rep. Michael Richard Pompeo [pron. “Pomp’-eh-ah”], whose initial and subsequent inquiries to the State Department revealed the Administration’s portrayal of its status, claims it carries no more weight than a scrap of paper; this view is consistent with conventional wisdom that this pact should be irrelevant domestically, regardless of whatever gravitas it is claimed to harbor as international “law.”

WHEN would this “political commitment” be implemented?

If unchecked, Obama will implement this ethereal concept any day now.

WHO has been the leader of the effort to unearth the true nature of this impending catastrophe?

Congressmen Pompeo, Roskam and Gohmert, plus Senator Cruz, have demonstrated the ability to “walk”…rather than merely to “talk.”

HOW would Obama sidestep both Supreme Court precedent and Constitutional mandates?

Alan Morton Dershowitz, Esquire cited Gibbons v. Ogden to support the determination that this document is a treaty (because it is a long-term diplomatic covenant) rather than an executive agreement (because it is not a short-term commercial deal), explaining why it should have been ratified by the Senate, notwithstanding Corker-Cardin.

Therefore, a model filing was drafted, drawing from fifteen heavily-hyperlinked essays initiated in May, culminating on September 29, summarized on October 2, and recapitulated in November (page 6);.

Key facets of this fill-in-the blanks litigation were fleshed-out on December 1 legalistically and on December 4 politically.

Here is the cascade of reasons why the House, plus the Senate, must block the pact:

• It has not been signed by anyone—including an Iranian—so it is unenforceable.

• It is a treaty rather than an executive(-legislative) agreement or a political commitment.

• It undermines American support for Israel’s right to exist and survival, ignoring the unambiguous “sense” of Congress, as articulated in Corker-Cardin.

• It was improperly implemented through passage of the Corker-Cardin Bill due to fundamental misrepresentations and withheld data

• It violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

• Neither the pact nor Corker-Cardin contains a “severability” clause and, thus, if any component of either document is flawed, the entire pact cannot be portrayed as having been approved.

The gravamen of the Administration’s legal argument can be portrayed in its most favorable light thusly:  “[W]e identify limited circumstances in which Congress must approve a political commitment; i.e., when the text exhibits the highest degrees of formality, substance, and organization, or where the autonomy from U.S. legal obligations is so low as to raise questions about end-runs around the treaty-making power.  Perhaps most importantly, bringing the political commitment power within a constitutional space reconciles existing practice with the Constitution’s basic ‘rule-of-law’ principle, establishing that the Constitution governs all U.S. international agreements, not just some of them.”

The pact does not comport with these specifics, for it is super-technical and America’s existing legal obligations—for example, through membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency—diminish claims of autonomy.

That’s why the pact constitutes a treaty that must be securely placed under the umbrella of the Constitution, and handled accordingly by both congress and the judiciary.

Because this deal is interwoven with Obama’s Islamophilic foreign policy, undermining his unholy alliance with Iran and Russia could finally unravel what has proven to be a series of failed “friendship” gambits (with sworn enemies) and of disheartening distancing-efforts (with loyal friends).

Congress can place Obama’s failed “following from behind” doctrine into receivership, before any more damage occurs throughout 2016.

Just as the House was granted standing to sue Obama for faulty implementation of ObamaCare, it must now stop him from granting Iran both the funding for international terrorism and a pathway to the Bomb.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a political-activist and has been a Republican Committee-Person for more than two decades; he has litigated against implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry due to flawed oversight, against the creation of health-insurer Highmark because it created a monopoly and monopsony, and against unconstitutional levels of public funding for two sports stadiums in Philadelphia.