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 ...
Remember the Kyoto Protocol treaty on climate change that Bill Clinton signed but was never sent to the Senate for ratification?
What is there to prevent Obama and liberals in Congress from demanding a similar process to ratify the Kyoto accords? I know the Corker Bill is limited to the nuclear agreement with Iran, but once treaty circumvention has precedent, why not use it for "global warming," too?
-PJ
Well, a sad commentary on our alleged Republicans in Washington,
the vote for the INARA bill was 98-1 in favor in the US Senate
and 400-0 as part of other items on the suspense or consent calendar.
So the only person who voted against it I think was Senator Tom Cotton.
Do you know him? Let me know!
A good idea but probably a waste of time. His Arrogance will have NSA pull out those pictures of Kennedy and Roberts naked with little boys and they will rewrite the agreement.
I know who he is, but I don’t know him and he isn’t my Senator. And, yes, it is a very sad commentary on the Stupid Party that this thing was sponsored by Corker and passed with near 100% Republican support.
Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...”
It’s a treaty. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to concur.
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.