Klayman Files Suit to Stop Iran Agreement

Klayman Files Suit to Stop Iran Agreement July 28, 2015

Add another lawsuit to the record of Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver. Now he’s filed a suit against President Obama, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ben Nelson and Rep. Patrick Murphy to stop the Iran deal from being implemented.

A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s dangerous treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified through a Congressional law that surrendered power to Obama. The lawsuit by Florida citizen Klayman names his U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. “These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Rubio is even raising money opposing the treaty although he voted for the bill that makes it possible,” Klayman said.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:15-cv-81023) is posted at http://www.FreedomWatchUSA.org/. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement.

But the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act” (“INARA”) signed on May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties, and the minimum vote required. INARA automatically ratifies Obama’s Iran treaty if Congress does not act and creates new timetables. INARA requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” rather than two-thirds of the Senate to ratify. INARA, though unclear, appears to give the President veto power over a “joint resolution,” thereby requiring three-quarters of both houses to over-ride Obama’s veto.

Here’s why he’s wrong: The Iran deal is not a treaty, it’s an executive agreement.

But recent precedent is squarely on McCain’s side, notwithstanding the Webster’s definition of a treaty as “an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups.”

And the vast majority of international agreements in recent decades haven’t been submitted to the Senate for approval.

Presidents determine what kind of arrangement they are negotiating — a power that’s evolved over the years. The difference is in both how the arrangement operates and how binding it is.

“First of all, a treaty is something that lives beyond existing presidents. … The next president can come in and undo an executive action like this,” Corker said.

In this instance, Obama is temporarily waiving existing sanctions pending certain conditions, and Congress will vote to either approve or disapprove. When the sanctions were levied, mostly in 2010, Congress gave him the authority to waive them.

“When these people are writing about it, they are missing something, and that is what we’ve done with this resolution of approval or disapproval is we’ve taken back authority that Congress had already granted to him,” said Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So Klayman is wrong again. How shocking. He’s also wrong about the effect of the deal:

This agreement will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States. Moreover, only a few years ago, the Iranian people almost overthrew Iran’s totalitarian government. Removing the economic pressures of sanctions frustrates the hopes of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy.

All nonsense. The entire point of the sanctions was to force Iran to the negotiating table and pressure them to drop their nuclear weapons program. This is the deal that resulted from that very pressure. And the Iranian people seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of it and view it as an important step in reforming Iran to be more progressive and less controlled by religious extremists.


Browse Our Archives