Posted on 07/23/2015 12:47:23 PM PDT by Moseley
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman is suing President Obama and members of Congress over a deal on Iran’s nuclear program that he claims flies in the face of the Constitution.
The lawsuit, Klayman says, aims to block both the treaty and the “unconstitutional” law that Congress passed to guarantee a review of the multinational nuclear accord.
The White House and Congress “gave away, abrogated and undermined [Klayman’s] constitutional rights, putting him in danger, including the protections inherent in the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty,” he said in the lawsuit. Under the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senate needs to approve any international treaty signed by the president.
But there will be no such vote on the Iran deal, which sets restrictions on the country's nuclear activity over the next decade in exchange for the rolling back of sanctions on its oil and financial sectors.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), which lawmakers passed earlier this year to give them oversight of the deal, violates the Constitution “by changing the method and radically altering the requirements by which treaties are ratified, who ratifies treaties, and the voting requirements to do so,” Klayman alleges in his lawsuit.
“As a result, INARA is unconstitutional, invalid, and void,” he added.
The constitutional argument has become popular among some conservatives, who feel that Congress sold them out by passing the Iran review bill, which allows lawmakers to pass a resolution for or against the deal, or to do nothing.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It is about time someone did this!!!!!
THE HILL writes: “However, the definition of a treaty is tricky, and presidents have tended to have the power to declare whether an agreement is a formal treaty or not. Lawmakers have insisted that the passage of the Iran review bill actually gave them leverage in the White House’s negotiations”
However, Congress has the “necessary and proper” clause for implementing the explicit powers under the Constitution.
Congress could have simply passed a law DEFINING what is a treaty within the meaning of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2,
and thereby FORCE US Senate ratification of any international deal.
Damned right! The Constitution RULES!!
I can remember when here in FR Klayman was a nutjob
And I remember when he was one of the good guys. Maybe he still is.
“The lawsuit, Klayman says, aims to block both the treaty and the “unconstitutional” law that Congress passed to guarantee a review of the multinational nuclear accord”
Thank you Larry. This is totally unconstitutional. It needs to get in front of the SCOTUS. Not that there is any guarantee they will rule properly.
Not much practical chance, but there might be a contemporary argument based on B. Altman & Co. v. United States, where the SC conceded that the definition of an ‘agreement’ versus a treaty could be too elastic to pass Constitutional muster.
The courts will declare it legal, if not constitutional. They are part of the Pretorian Guard.
Constitution Rules
In your eyes and my eyes, yes, with Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial branches of govt, not so much. Time to start looking for a good scythe.
Seems like if a President can go to war without formal Congressional approval [Constitution] he can do anything.
Let this go all the way to the Supreme Court!
Yeah, they have a great record of ruling based on the Constitution.
Just because the law says something, that doesn’t mean our government has to do it.
That’s what our Court said about Obamacare - I figure it also applies here.
That’s funny, so do I. He has come a long way and seems to be doing a much better job. Got to say “ hes persistent”
This is that unconstitutional “deal” the brilliant constitutionalist Ted Cruz signed onto.
I don’t think anything will happen with this law suit they’ll protect Sambo and push this treaty through. Congress does not have any cojones to stop it.
Not quite. Do you recall that in order for a bill to become law that it not only requires passage by 50% +1 vote in each house, but also the President's signature? Barring that, the Congress, by a 2/3 or greater majority both houses, can override a Presidential veto.
Your proposed bill, whether enacted a few months ago or tomorrow, wouldn't become law any more than a bill over-turning this horrible agreement will be. Besides, even if it passed and Obama's veto was over-ridden, he'd appeal to the courts and we wouldn't have a decision for at least a year...and in the meantime, he'd do whatever he wanted to do.
Great theory, but it only works with a moral governing class (especially the Chief Executive) - and we are clearly in a post-moral era.
5.56mm
Klayman will lose based on lack of standing/failure to state a claim.
Now if a Senator were to bring such a suit, particularly one who voted against the bill that Congress passed AND the Iran deal itself, THEN you’d have someone with standing.
Unfortunately, this will die, skewered on the pike called ‘standing’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.