TOMORROW is CRUNCH-DAY!

We can still stop the Iranian nuke pact by bipartisan, bicameral litigation
As promised, my tenth published-article regarding this transcendent-issue has emerged [c/o Thomas
Lifson] @ The American Thinker, and the comments-section suggests it has been noticed.
Temporarily, during the day, I invoked the uploaded version of my prior Blast e-mail on scribd but,
obviously, the validation adds to the assumed gravitas of this initiative. I also captured the days events
in uploaded comments, to wit:
First of all, the below-comments are appreciated; the abject negativity [which draws
from experience] is not going to be addressed, because "hope springs eternal." [THANX
for the correction regarding Tom Cotton.]
Second, there is insufficient time to impeach or to accomplish anything substantial prior
to the Thursday-p.m. deadline other than to litigate; "Whiny and the Turtle" must be
nudged [perhaps by threat of replacement?] to do the right thing...for history.
Third, follow-back the hyperlinks for thorough documentation of summary-assertions
in this piece [cut to < 800 words] and, in particular, note the smoking-gun info that the
"secret" IAEA-Iranian inspection arrangement is "discoverable" if only BHO would
request it; thus, there is no question that Corker wasn't satisfied AND that BHO could
have satisfied it.
Fourth, both FNC and other internet sources are reporting that McConnell is being
pressured to invoke the Nuclear Option [the procedure having been unearthed in prior
essays]; note the letter by Rep.Vern Buchanan [R-FL], citation by Sen. John McCain [RAZ] and the following essay: [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor...].
*
One can even invoke recent events [Russia snubs BHO and militarizes Syria, Iran snubs
BHO by claiming no more agreements, etc.] to undermine theory that this event could
herald--somehow--new levels of cooperation. Couple this with lack of revelation of
OBL's alleged-proof of a link between 9-11 and Iran...and a toxic-mix emerges. BUT
TIME TICKS, and people are invited to FLOOD D.C. TOMORROW!!!
*
One final point: Mr. Thomas Lifson again merits praise, for he has provided this space
[@ short-notice] where the battle-plan can be uploaded easily -- for all to see and cite - just in time for tomorrow's caucusing.
It behooves readers to ACT accordingly, for you now have a distilled document that
captures what, presumably, y'all would like to see transpire.
It is also felt to be desirableso that all key talking-points can be distilled hereinto provide a rejoinder
to an e-mail provided from a querying-lawyer who is a member of a prestigious center-city law-firm:

["There is no way that the House can sue over this. The ruling the Judge Collyer issued earlier in the week
to permit the House to sue over the ACA held that only claims about the administrations attempt to spend
money that had not been appropriated, which implicates Congresss Appropriations power, gives the
House standing to sue. That issue is not implicated here. Maybe the Senate has standing because it was
deprived of the opportunity to ratify a treaty, but I doubt it. I think a court will stay out of it. And frankly,
I think a court should stay out of it. Theres a tendency to assume that courts should resolve all of these
disputes, but that elevates the courts to a level above the other two, supposedly co-equal branches of the
government"]
First, the Collyer ruling was predicated on the ability of Congress to appropriate [Article
1, Section 8]; because the expenditure of federal monies [defense/state depts., for
example] are involved with implementation of deal [funding IAEA extras, for
example], its legit.
It certainly can be filed, and stop the implementation in the process.
Second, as per my most-recent essay, BHO didnt comply with Corker and, thus, the
clock hasnt started running; this will also justify litigation.
These 2 actions by the House could then, via Gohmerts Resolution 410, be co-adopted
by the Senate.
Third, per Dershowitz in USA-Today, Gibbons v. Ogden supports this being a treaty
[longer term, lesser economic vs. shorter term, more commercial].
The Senate may be invoking the Nuclear Option [per FNC and e-mail] which yours-truly
has been advocating in multiple essays [unlike EVERY other pundit].
Its NOT merely a political question when so many CONSTITUTIONAL issues abound!
It seems that my message is getting through; again, the goal is to prod the House to vote to sue, then
to pass the entire Gohmert Resolution, then prod the Senate [after having invoked the Nuclear Option]
to co-adopt the actions of the House, thereby yielding legislation that mainstreams the treaty issue.
[The prior Blast e-mail is provided, again to distill talking-points.]
Congress returns TODAY and will start its sessions in the p.m.; PLEASE disseminate the sentiments in
this op-ed ASAP as BROADLY as possible; the deadline for filing litigation is less than 62-hours away!
The following article will be uploaded later-today @ The American Thinker; again Mr. Thomas Lifson
has responded to my subtle entreaty, reflected in the following title-line: [wrote this over the weekend;
if you think i've invoked you to-the-max on this issue, no problemo].
As previously discussed, I could be justifiably accused of having obsessed over this issue but, again,
what you are receiving has NOT been otherwise disseminated; even an interim-piece [following
Saturdays Blast e-mail] by former-AG Michael Mukasey [Cleaning Up After the Obama Teams Iran
Deal] is flawed for, just like most BHO-apologists attempting to appear reasonable, hes suggesting
ANYTHING short of a direct legal challenge to this catastrophic document [about which he is mute].

I will continue to work 26 hours a day, 8 days a week pushing this narrative, even as others have
seemingly grown to appreciate its wisdom following publication of my first article in May [with the
below-piece constituting the tenth upload]; I will also divulge those who have demonstrated shocking
levels of ignorance and/or inactivity in the process, revelations that will NOT be pretty.
One disclaimer relates to the decompensation of Glenn Beck [The rift between Gov. Palin and Beck
goes back to when Beck violated her trust by reading one of her private emails on the air without asking
her permission] that he appears to have validated; know that confidences will not be violated when
focusing on organizational behavior [employing pronouns when judiciously required].
The goal of such a post-mortem will be to explore the level of permanence that can be deduced from
the conduct of those who claim to be Israels friends; I will risk being termed a bully in the process
[as allegedly transpired when I confronted Michael Orens hypocrisy @ the Philly Free Library during his
book-tour], for I detected deep-seated problems that carry tremendous import regarding both Jewry
and American Exceptionalism.
This article contains a smoking-gun revelation that the media have ignored and that cinches the
rationale for suing BHO based upon the secret IAEA-Iranian agreement; it IS discoverable and, thus,
there is NO reason for its not to have been divulged to Congress!!!

Stop the Iranian Nuke-Pact by Bipartisan-Bicameral Litigation

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Congress has until Thursday night to sue President Obama. The House will apparently lead the charge.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said a lawsuit is very possible. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) will revisit the issue legislatively.
Meanwhile, revelation of fatal faults in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) accumulate (e.g.,
Irans missile program would become exempt).
Litigation was presaged by the September 10 vote by the House affirming that incomplete disclosure of
inspection-documentsexposed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and confirmed by the Associated Press
voided the Corker-Cardin Act.
The wisdom of ignoring the administrations claim that it does not possess them was confirmed when
Business Insider publicized an e-mail received from former IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen.
The media have ignored the fact that the United States, as an IAEA board-member, can seek release of
the secret documents: If a board-member asks (for) it and others resist the distributionthis can be
overcome by a vote.(A s)imple majority is enough, and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system."

This authors prior articles specified the rationale for efforts to block this treaty and the method to
preclude filibusters by invoking the Senates nuclear option. This author anticipated in May that such
conflict between two governmental branches would have to be adjudicated.
As a result, Boehner can optimize a legal challenge by recalling two ObamaCare-related legal precedents:
1.
On September 9, a federal court gave the House standing to challenge Obamas implementation
of ObamaCare by citing Congress constitutionally-provided mandate and rejecting exercise of
presidential fiat.
Because neither the JCPOA nor the act contains a severability clause, the entire act must be applied to
the entire JCPOA. Anything contradictory or inapplicable when comparing them voids approving the
JCPOA by employing the act.
Congress can contest the JCPOA, claiming executive overreach.
2.
Last June, the Supreme Court gave Obama the ability to maintain federal and state exchanges
by invoking its interpretation of congressional intent and ignoring explicit statutory language.
The administrations constantly reassured the public, as recently as to Congress up to one week prior to
July 14when the JCPOA was signedthat an agreement would not extend to non-nuclear weaponry.
The JCPOA is contradictory, voiding U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 (encompassing ballistic missiles)
contingent upon satisfying certain interim requirements, and Iran and Russia are already exploring armssales (undoubtedly targeting America and her traditional allies).
Congress can contest the act, claiming adoption under false pretenses.
Therefore, the House must pass a resolution authorizing Boehner to file a lawsuit that claims Corker-Cardin
was not fulfilled (due to the absence of complete disclosure) and, thus, that the 60-day deadline has not
started. The Senate must superimpose its claim the JCPOAs status as a treaty cannot be overridden by
legislation (the act). Both must claim damages arose after Obama precluded them from discharging
their oversight responsibilities.
The House voted against approval rather than addressing a disapproval resolution, as had been
advised in sequential essays by former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. His most recent pieces
invoked efforts by Sen. Cruz to derail the JCPOA by targeting bankers, and he concluded that Sen.
McConnell must advocate passage of a resolution declaring that Obamas default renders the Corker
review process moot.
These actions are embodied in the Gohmert Resolution (#410), which recognizes that the JCPOA should
have been submitted as a treaty and, thus, have become subject to the Senates advise and consent
role. Their rationale is reflected in the observation by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) that permitting release by
global financial institutions of approximately $150 billion would yield America becoming the number-one
funder of global terrorism.
Deroy Murdock, another author at the National Reviews Corner, concurred: Mitch McConnell Should
Follow Houses Lead on Obama-Nuke Deal. That the Senate rejected, in April, treating a generic nuclear
pact like a treaty cannot serve as a negative-precedent because the specific text of the JCPOA had not yet
been released.

Until now, Obama has controlled the daily political talking-points, channeling the successful modus
operandi of James Carville when he ran Bill Clintons War Room in 1992. Obama intentionally allowed
Iran to shorten the nuclear breakout time so that he can now essentially argueas he could not, a halfdecade agothat no deal is worse than a bad deal.
The GOP-controlled Congress must answer Obamas polemics.
Obamas historic campaign to strengthen Iran must be countered (1)by seizing back the legislative
authority and the narrative; (2)by sculpting a bipartisan-bicameral lawsuit against an imperial
presidency; and (3)by honoring overwhelming public sentiment against capitulating to the mullahs.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a political-activist. Hyperlinks to documentation of these assertions may be

acquired either by consulting the version of this op-ed uploaded onto the Internet or by contacting the
author at rsklaroff@gmail.com.