To Stop the Iran-Nuke Deal: Sue Obama

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Legislative proposals intended to stop the Iran-Nuke deal are suddenly flourishing, but omitted from the
public/private strategizing is their final common-denominator: the Senate must file an injunction ASAP
against implementation of this capitulation until its legality has been clarified.
Enjoining President Obama should be based upon the just-announced decision that Speaker Boehner can
sue him over Obamacare. This precedent-setting order has established the capacity for Congress to attain
standing to challenge executive fiat.
The major new proposal is to supplant the disapproval resolution by doing nothing, seeking to cancel any
House vote on the Iran nuclear agreement because of undisclosed side deals. This is based upon a triad
of articles by former federal-prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, the most recent of which asserted Senator
Ted Cruz Is Right: the [60-day notification] Corker Law Period for Congressional Review of the Iran Act Has
Never Begun. It was enhanced by other commentaries, including that of Jerome M. Marcus, Esq. in the
Wall Street Journal, and is certainly justified.
This last-minute initiative was promoted by the Freedom Caucus of the House, conservatives who have
prompted the leadership to plan to hold three separate votes on the deal: disapproval, assertion that
Obama failed to uphold Corker-Cardin by withholding the secret-agreements, and blocking Obama from
lifting sanctions.
The latter article in The Hill and an earlier op-ed in the Washington Post buried the lede, however,
literally in their last paragraphs. The former ends: In addition to forcing uncomfortable votes for House
Democrats, GOP leaders decision also opens the door to a lawsuit against the White House by the House
or by a private party. The latter ends: If the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress
can and should take its case to court.
This core-concern was unearthed and promoted, subtly, in the privileged resolution filed by Rep. Roskam
(R-IL) that ultimately directs the House Clerk to seek such documentation from Obama and, in the interim,
to freeze the sanctions. Roskam ends his filing (which is not yet on-line) with a mandate that Speaker
Boehner report how he plans to implement its provisions, again suggestingwithout statingintent to
seek injunctive relief to ensure enforcement.
A fundamental filing is the declaration that the document constitutes a treaty, per Rep. Gohmert (R-TX)].
On the one hand, the House cannot direct a separate body, the Senate, to act in a prescribed fashion; on
the other hand, the Houses declaration would necessitate the Senate function accordingly.
This, in turn leads to Sen. Cruz having challenged Congressional leadership at the anti-deal rally to fulfill
its pledge to do everything possible to block it, targeting both Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader
McConnell [R-KY].
The Senate must invoke the nuclear option to overcome the threat of a filibuster of this deal that would,
essentially, provide Iran its nuclear option. This can be accomplished by a simple majority vote (on the
non-debatable motion to table the point of order), by admitting the motion to proceed to a vote on the
pending rules change proposal, [enabling] a simple majority to bring about a vote on the proposal itself
(Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules, page 14).

The Senate would then pass a resolution stating the deal is a treaty by a simple-majority vote, recognizing
that Obama mistakenly referred it for approval under the Corker-Cardin Act. It would then defeat the
measure under its advise/consent role.
The prognosis that the Supreme Court would uphold any facet of this Congressional initiative is enhanced
by recalling its having overturned Obamas recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in
June 2014. Indeed, two Obamacare decisions are potentially dispositive, the aforementioned granting of
standing to Speaker Boehner and the June SCOTUS decision based upon (some would claim to have been
contrived) congressional intent.
{The reader is advised to review a prior essay, with 40 hyperlinks encompassing all relevant facets of this
distressing deal. It also elucidated additional issues, including exploration of whether Obama/Kerry would
abide by a Supreme Court Order and why it is mandatory to file suit prior to expiration of the 60-day
review-period.}
Some feel the motivation behind these political maneuverings was Obamas objective to bolster Irans
ability to supplant Americas involvement in the Middle East, notwithstanding Irans hegemonic conduct.
A personal prognostication is far more sinister for, by threatening traditional support for regional allies,
Obama would then feel emboldened to attempt to garner a second Nobel Prize by reviving a moribund
two-state solution (aided and abetted by the U.N. Security Council). He would then force Prime Minister
Netanyahu to withdraw to the 1967 cease-fire lines regardless of the illegality and impracticality thereof,
while ensuring the Israelis would not be able to bomb Irans burgeoning Nuke-industry.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. has litigated against implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement with
the tobacco industry, against the creation of health-insurer Highmark, and against public funding of two
stadiums in Philadelphia.