Iran handed $150 billion 'signing bonus' to terrorize
Obama nemesis confronts judge with claim nuclear 'deal' unconstitutional
The estimated $150 billion “signing bonus” that Iran will get under
Barack Obama’s negotiated “deal” with the rogue Islamic nation will fund
“waves of terror,” according to a court filing in a case that alleges
the arrangement is simply unconstitutional.
WND reported recently when the lawsuit was filed by activist lawyer Larry Klayman, a veteran of multiple courtroom battles with presidents, including Bill Clinton and George Bush.
He claims, “A president cannot lawfully override or amend a treaty simply by issuing an order, even if he calls it an executive order or some other form of international agreement,” in the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, named as defendants Barack Hussein Obama, Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson of Florida and his congressman, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.
He alleges that the federal officials “acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution” in support of a bill through which the Iranian deal is being ratified.
It explains that the Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it.
What’s next? Find out in “Showdown with Nuclear Iran.”
“A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement,” he explained.
However, Klayman asserted, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act signed May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties and the minimum vote required.
The process, pushed by Obama and adopted in Congress, instead requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” instead of having two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate approve it. And Obama repeatedly has argued that it’s a “deal,” not really a “treaty.”
The judge, Kenneth A. Marra, took the unusual step of posing his own questions to Klayman in the case, regarding jurisdiction and standing, and Klayman responded with his explanation that he had standing to file the complaint because the agreement offers a threat to him.
He explains he’s seeking a declaration that Obama’s pact with Iran, actually negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, is unconstitutional.
Naming his representatives in Congress, Klayman writes that they “have modified and perverted the U.S. Constitution without complying with the amendment process. Defendants are the plaintiff’s representatives who owed a fiduciary duty to uphold his rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution, and protect his rights and security.”
He said they simply changed the “process for ratification” has been changed but that it still will “have a binding legal effect as a treaty.”
Under the constitutional amendment process, he said, “it would fail at being ratified.”
“As a result, plaintiff will face waves of terrorism funded directly (openly) and covertly from an estimated $150 billion ‘signing bonus’ that Iran will receive under the … treaty and the ending of sanctions on Iranian commerce, at home in the United States and while traveling in Israel, in Europe or elsewhere internationally.”
He continued, “Secretary of state John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and other officials openly admit that Iran will be free to use the $150 billion to fund terrorism against Israel and the United States, to topple countries throughout the Middle East, and to expand Iran’s power throughout the Middle East.”
The Constitution is “crystal-clear” on the issue, and “a president has no legal power whatsoever to enter into a treaty without two-thirds votes of U.S. senators present voting for ratification,” he argues.
“Compliance of congressional enactments with the procedures established by the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on powers granted thereunder are well-grounded roles of the federal courts,” he said.
The Supreme Court, he said, has written about such a dispute: “The president cannot make a treaty or appoint an ambassador without the approval of the Senate. The president, furthermore, could not build an American embassy abroad without congressional appropriation of the necessary funds.”
“There are no subjective half-measures involved here,” he wrote. “An agreement with Iran entered into by President Obama concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons development program either has legal effect or it does not, either entirely valid or entirely not valid, and void under the U.S. Constitution.”
He also noted that the “U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.”
The deal has been delayed many times in recent months. It was announced July 14 after being negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama already has obtained approval from the United Nations and the European Union, but the proposal has only just been given to Congress for its review.
And since the Islamic Republic of Iran on July 2, 1968, signed onto the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. and Iran already had a treaty, he said.
Thus, any new one would require that the senior document be overridden.
But that takes more than an executive order, he said.
“The previously existing treaty between Iran and the United States on the same subject, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, having been duly and properly ratified by a two-thirds vote in favor by the U.S. Senate, cannot now be constitutionally modified by the defendants without complying with the treaty ratification process,” his complaint notes.
All Obama got, he said, is “unenforceable and unverifiable promises” from Iran about restricting its nuclear development.
Get this special bundle that includes “Atomic Iran” and “Atomic Jihad.”
He claims, “A president cannot lawfully override or amend a treaty simply by issuing an order, even if he calls it an executive order or some other form of international agreement,” in the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, named as defendants Barack Hussein Obama, Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson of Florida and his congressman, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.
He alleges that the federal officials “acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution” in support of a bill through which the Iranian deal is being ratified.
It explains that the Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it.
What’s next? Find out in “Showdown with Nuclear Iran.”
“A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement,” he explained.
However, Klayman asserted, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act signed May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties and the minimum vote required.
The process, pushed by Obama and adopted in Congress, instead requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” instead of having two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate approve it. And Obama repeatedly has argued that it’s a “deal,” not really a “treaty.”
The judge, Kenneth A. Marra, took the unusual step of posing his own questions to Klayman in the case, regarding jurisdiction and standing, and Klayman responded with his explanation that he had standing to file the complaint because the agreement offers a threat to him.
He explains he’s seeking a declaration that Obama’s pact with Iran, actually negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, is unconstitutional.
Naming his representatives in Congress, Klayman writes that they “have modified and perverted the U.S. Constitution without complying with the amendment process. Defendants are the plaintiff’s representatives who owed a fiduciary duty to uphold his rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution, and protect his rights and security.”
He said they simply changed the “process for ratification” has been changed but that it still will “have a binding legal effect as a treaty.”
Under the constitutional amendment process, he said, “it would fail at being ratified.”
“As a result, plaintiff will face waves of terrorism funded directly (openly) and covertly from an estimated $150 billion ‘signing bonus’ that Iran will receive under the … treaty and the ending of sanctions on Iranian commerce, at home in the United States and while traveling in Israel, in Europe or elsewhere internationally.”
He continued, “Secretary of state John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and other officials openly admit that Iran will be free to use the $150 billion to fund terrorism against Israel and the United States, to topple countries throughout the Middle East, and to expand Iran’s power throughout the Middle East.”
The Constitution is “crystal-clear” on the issue, and “a president has no legal power whatsoever to enter into a treaty without two-thirds votes of U.S. senators present voting for ratification,” he argues.
“Compliance of congressional enactments with the procedures established by the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on powers granted thereunder are well-grounded roles of the federal courts,” he said.
The Supreme Court, he said, has written about such a dispute: “The president cannot make a treaty or appoint an ambassador without the approval of the Senate. The president, furthermore, could not build an American embassy abroad without congressional appropriation of the necessary funds.”
“There are no subjective half-measures involved here,” he wrote. “An agreement with Iran entered into by President Obama concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons development program either has legal effect or it does not, either entirely valid or entirely not valid, and void under the U.S. Constitution.”
He also noted that the “U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.”
The deal has been delayed many times in recent months. It was announced July 14 after being negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama already has obtained approval from the United Nations and the European Union, but the proposal has only just been given to Congress for its review.
And since the Islamic Republic of Iran on July 2, 1968, signed onto the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. and Iran already had a treaty, he said.
Thus, any new one would require that the senior document be overridden.
But that takes more than an executive order, he said.
“The previously existing treaty between Iran and the United States on the same subject, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, having been duly and properly ratified by a two-thirds vote in favor by the U.S. Senate, cannot now be constitutionally modified by the defendants without complying with the treaty ratification process,” his complaint notes.
All Obama got, he said, is “unenforceable and unverifiable promises” from Iran about restricting its nuclear development.
Get this special bundle that includes “Atomic Iran” and “Atomic Jihad.”
2 comments:
This is absolutely NOT true!
Maybe it is that Iran is a two sided spy as they made a Peace Agreement with Mehran Keshe to receive his plasma technology, but they will go against America as what Russia has done to shut down one of their Navy ships to show America Russia wants Peace world wide.
Post a Comment