(MI) Schuette Calls on All States to Impose Sanctions on Iran

Michigan Attorney General's office ^ | September 1, 2015 | Office of Bill Schuette

[cripplecreek]

LANSING- In response to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt today issued a letter to the Governors of all 50 states urging them to impose state-based sanctions against Iran.

“Iran engages in some of the world’s most severe human rights abuses, oppressing women, and persecuting people of nearly all faiths, including Jews, Christians and Baha’is,” said Schuette. "In my past service as a Congressman from Michigan, I supported a strong national defensive capability and opposed relations with Iran, a country hostile to both the United States and our key strategic ally Israel. Now, in service as to Michigan as Attorney General, I will enforce Michigan law and opposed lifting any sanctions on Iran."

In 2010, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 stated “that the United States should support the decision of any State or local government that for moral, prudential, or reputational reasons divests from, or prohibits the investment of assets of the State or local government in…Iran.” To date, 25 states – from New York to Florida to Texas to California – have enacted such sanctions.

“As part of the Iran deal, the president has agreed to actively encourage states to drop their sanctions, and there’s no doubt the administration will label our effort as ‘interference.’ But there is strong bipartisan opposition to the Iran deal in Congress, and 25 states already have exercised their authority and issued sanctions to prohibit investment of state assets in Iran. To those states, we are encouraging them to strengthen and expand existing sanctions. For the other 25 states, we are urging governors and attorneys general, as those elected to enforce laws and ensure good stewardship of public funds, to aggressively move to enact strong sanctions against Iran as soon as possible,” said Pruitt.

Click here for a copy of the letter, which also includes draft language for legislative and executive action to be used to impose state-based sanctions.

[cripplecreek]

Considering the fact that Bill Schuette is on Jeb Bush's campaign team I guess it isn't surprising that he doesn't mention the precedent being used for this. (Ted Cruz 2008 win in Medellin Vs TX)
pdf Letter

The letter does name Medellin VS TX.

[cripplecreek]

Cruz ping for a few of you.

[cripplecreek]

From the second paragraph of the letter

President Obama chose to pursue this major international accord as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty, in order to circumvent the Constitution’s requirement of two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate for enactment. U.S. CONST. Art. II, § 2. However, because the Constitution clearly contemplates that such agreements, fundamentally reordering the relations between the United States and a foreign country, shall be concluded as treaties, the Iran agreement does not constitute the “Supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. CONST. Art. VI, binding upon the States. Indeed, in Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that even treaties are not binding upon the States unless they are self-executing or are accompanied by implementing legislation enacted by Congress. 552 U.S. 491, 504-06 (2008).

[KC_Lion]

Excellent! Thank You for the Ping Cripple!

The States picking up the slack, I Love it!

Related:Sarah Palin to Speak in DC at Anti-Iran Deal Rally

She will Join Ted Cruz and show that this deal is true stupidity.

[cripplecreek]

You might want to check this out too.

[South40]

Great news! However, pro-Iran Barry has probably already advised his Just-Us department to file lawsuits against those 25 states.

[cripplecreek]

Michigan has had sanctions against Iran since 2013. (at the same time we’ve strengthened ties to Israel.)

[South40]

I’m sure my state has done the same. Oh, wait....

[cripplecreek]

You sound like you could use this.

[cripplecreek]

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing." Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

In october 2007 I sat in the media gallery of the united states supreme court and watched the solicitor general of texas argue on behalf of the state that he should have the ability to put to death a mexican national, Jose Medellín, who had been convicted of raping and murdering two teenage girls in houston. He won that argument and he (Medellín) was executed by texas on august 5th , 2008 , despite the objections of the united nations and the international court of justice . at the time, I had no idea who this man arguing on behalf of texas was. but all I could think was holy crap , this guy is good. it was one of his nine times arguing before the supreme court and he was witty, incredibly fast on his feet and clearly had a brilliant legal mind. it is to this day one of the most impressive displays i have ever seen before the court and i have had the good fortune to spend a lot of time there. so you can imagine my horror in 2012 when i tuned into the texas senate race. i hadn't been paying much attention to. and realized that lieutenant governor david dewhurst , the republican establishment candidate, was being prepared by a tea party candidate who was the same guy i saw kick ass in the supreme court in 2007 . i thought that night, night i made that connection, oh, this is trouble. and trouble that man has been. trouble in every direction. as he vies to be the singular voice of the right wing grassroots and as he has very quickly assumed a leadership role in movement.

Is Ted Cruz the most dangerous man on the American right?

[fatnotlazy]

Thanks for the ping.

[jsanders2001]

This is good news. I just wish we had leadership in DC who recognized that no president in his right mind would hand the keys to build a nuclear bomb over to a terrorist nation. Or maybe they do but were handed a padded envelope and need to be dragged ino the streets and beaten as their hiomes ho up in flames. Of coure not by me but I would probably be cheering them on at this point.

[cripplecreek]

I like Bill Schuette but he really should give credit where its due even if he is working for the opposition.

Ted Cruz to States: Impose Your Own Iran Sanctions (Aug 9th thread)

[MeshugeMikey]

At this time...I shall have to withold judgement and opinion on this matter until I get the The Donald Talking Points Email Newsletter....

[cripplecreek]

At this time...I shall have to withold judgement and opinion on this matter until I get the The Donald Talking Points Email Newsletter

And then it can become his brilliant idea. LOL

[MeshugeMikey]

absolutely.

"I THE DONAKD had The Idea LONG before these LITTLE PEOPLE did!! You have "The Donalds" word on that!!"

[shanover]

Obama uses the Constitution as TP.The GOP acts like it is written in Chinese.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Indeed, in Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that even treaties are not binding upon the States unless they are self-executing or are accompanied by implementing legislation enacted by Congress. 552 U.S. 491, 504-06 (2008)."

We can thank Ted Cruz for that.

He's also been out in front, urging the states to enact their own sanctions.

[CatherineofAragon]

LOL!

[V K Lee]

It’s about time the Governors became involved. Our Supreme Court, those ‘esteemed justices’, have already indicated the governors of the States can halt this ‘treaty’ by simply ignoring it. It is not in anyone’s best interest that it go forward’ This time, perhaps they have a point. (period) Gov. Abbott, are you reading this?