Posted on 10/11/2015 6:35:43 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
Its usually the first warning to someone whos about to enter into a complicated legal agreement: Be sure to read the fine print.
Looks like President Obama and the team that negotiated the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran didnt do that. Or, worse still, they did but hoped no one else would. Too late for that.
Fox News James Rosen reports some senior US officials involved in the negotiations have concluded that a key element of the deal conflicts with federal law and cant be implemented.
Unless Congress changes the law, that is. But since majorities in both houses opposed the deal, why would they help it now?
Especially since it involves sanctions relief freeing up tens of billions to Tehran for use in supporting its terrorist allies.
At issue is a provision allowing foreign subsidiaries of US firms to do business with Iran.
Oops: The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, signed into law by Obama in 2012, specifies that this can only happen if Iran is removed from the State Departments list of terror sponsors and the president certifies that Iran has permanently ceased the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has said loudly it wont stop boosting terror, and the deal doesnt even pretend to permanently stop it from building nukes.
If the deal were a treaty ratified by Congress, it would be near-impossible to challenge in court. But its not a treaty and this fine-print problem is an open invitation to legal challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
-—Unless Congress changes the law, that is. But since majorities in both houses opposed the deal, why would they help it now?-—
Is this a serious question by the NYP Editorial Board? Either they’re delusional, or they’ve got their RINO colored glasses on this weekend.
We the People aren’t mad as hell for nothing.
0 doesn’t care about law. He does what he wants.
You can fool most of the people most of the time about most things. ;)
Of course Obama and Kerry knew ahead of time, if they had to submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty, the Senate would never have ratified it.Doesn't matter. The Corker bill that all but one Senator voted in favor of waives the Senates constitutional right of veto. The one Senator WAS NOT CRUZ. Cruz stood up for the "Washington cartel" that he pretends to hate.
The self-proclaimed "constitutionalist" Ted Cruz voted away his constitutional right of veto in favor of Iran and Obama and by extension FOR TERROR and AGAINST ISRAEL.
Does that sound like something a brilliant conservative would do?...NO!
Cruz is a faux conservative.
The law? What do I care about law? Ain’t I got the power?
Drudgereport headline:
Iran test-fires new generation long-range ballistic missiles...
Obama will be only person sticking to deal...
When will Obama/Kerry/Jarrett be arrested ?
What difference, at this point, does it make?
“At issue is a provision allowing foreign subsidiaries of US firms to do business with Iran.”
Where is a list of these companies and who do they “contribute” to?
Perhaps President Trump will appoint Rudy Giuliani as a special prosecutor to look into nefarious dealings by the 0b0la administration.
He’s a UN puppet.
All that I have received back is requests for more money. The Ted Cruz campaign will not receive another dime from me until I get an answer that I can agree with.
My question to you sir is this, which candidate do you presently support for the nomination and why? You owe me no answer but I would appreciate one.
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.