Why Justin Amash Opposes the Iran Deal
Justin Amash, a libertarian Republican who explains all his votes on Facebook, has a lengthy set of reasons for his opposition to the Iran deal. He first objects to its violating the Treaty Clause, which is a familiar argument that I will not quote. He then goes on to say:
Even if we accept this dubious claim, there is a second constitutional defect that compels me to reject the nuclear deal. Under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5), the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” As I discuss below, the president clearly fails to fulfill this obligation.
In May, both houses of Congress passed, and the president signed into law, H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Review Act). The Review Act provides a process for congressional oversight of any nuclear deal, so that Congress can determine whether the nuclear-related sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran should be lifted. I have supported sanctions on Iran directed at preventing the country from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon (in contrast to sanctions targeting non-nuclear-related civilian activities), and it’s likely that negotiations would not have taken place had those sanctions not been enacted.
The Review Act requires the president to submit to Congress the text of any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Submission of the nuclear deal triggers a period of review for Congress to analyze the agreement—a period during which the president is prohibited from taking any actions to lift statutory sanctions.
The precise language of the Review Act recognizes that a comprehensive nuclear deal includes many separate components, and that for members of Congress to accurately assess the merits of the agreement, Congress must have access to all portions of the agreement. Thus, the Review Act carefully defines “agreement” to include “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements.”We now know that there are at least two side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that are integral to the nuclear deal but nevertheless will not be shared with Congress. These side agreements cover how a primary Iranian military site will be inspected for nuclear activity and how Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Remarkably, it was only through a chance meeting between two members of Congress and the IAEA that the existence of these secret agreements came to light. The Obama administration apparently preferred to keep Congress in the dark, and even now the administration refuses to provide the side agreements to Congress. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that even the president’s negotiating team doesn’t have access to these side agreements.
The Obama administration’s secrecy surrounding these side agreements casts serious doubts on its other claims about the nuclear deal, and it makes clear that the president has not been working with Congress in good faith. The president signed the Review Act into law knowing full well that it requires him to provide all side agreements to Congress. The administration should not have negotiated a final nuclear deal that allows portions of the agreement to be withheld from Congress, because the president knows that his agreeing to such a nuclear deal violates U.S. law and his duty under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.
This violation of law with respect to the submission of the agreement has further implications under the Review Act. The 30- to 60-day congressional review period for the nuclear deal isn’t triggered until the president submits the *entire* agreement to Congress. If the nuclear deal hasn’t been submitted in full—because side agreements remain hidden—then the review period hasn’t even begun.
But the existence of secret agreements with the IAEA has deeper implications still. The available text of the nuclear deal states that nuclear, missile, and arms restrictions on Iran are to be lifted after certain periods of time (between five and ten years depending on the source and type) “or when the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.” In other words, at the discretion of the IAEA, these restrictions may be lifted significantly earlier than the milestone dates specified in the agreement, and the exact method by which the IAEA will reach this conclusion can’t be known to Congress or even the Obama administration, because the side agreements remain secret.
Finally, even if we set aside the constitutional defects and related consequences discussed above, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would negotiate a final agreement that does not secure the release of the three American hostages held in Iran—Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian—or information on the whereabouts of a former FBI agent abducted in Iran, Robert Levinson. The nuclear deal provides Iran access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and the almost immediate removal of major U.S. and international economic sanctions on Iran’s financial and energy sectors, followed by the termination of most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in just a few years. If Iran is unwilling to return American hostages to their families as part of this agreement, then we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.
I support peaceful negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon, and I kept an open mind about this agreement as it was being negotiated. It’s regrettable that the president has acted disingenuously in his interactions with Congress and continues to treat the Constitution with contempt. Despite the Obama administration’s false rhetoric, the choice here is not between this nuclear deal and war. A better agreement that complies with the Constitution and secures long-lasting peace is possible.
I saw Ted Cruz making the same argument last night on TV.
I guess if you think that elected officials get to define their own duties any way they see fit, Obama is off the hook. Otherwise, it seems that Rep. Amash has a valid set of objections.
I guess if you think that elected officials get to define their own duties any way they see fit, Obama is off the hook.
well said Mr. Patterico
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/10/2015 @ 8:11 amSo does this make Mr. Obama the Disingenuous-in-Chief?
navyvet (c33501) — 9/10/2015 @ 8:50 amWhen I register my objections to libertarianism this isn’t what I mean.
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/10/2015 @ 8:58 amEven if we assume that enough congressmen and senators oppose the deal to not only pass the bill but override the President’s veto, all that that will mean is that the United States will continue the sanctions, while the rest of the “P5+1” will not. Iran will then be able to buy any damned thing it wants, but just not from the United States. Iran would play the US rejection of the deal as a means of further avoiding inspections and compliance.
There will be support for the deal from the business community, because they believe there is money to be made.
The practical Dana (f6a568) — 9/10/2015 @ 9:30 amIt is taken for granted by the Republican leadership that impeachment is a political impossibility. Therefore, the only option left in their quiver is an appeal to the Supreme Court over the perfidy of the administration. Which means it will get down to a matter of words. If we haven’t learned by now that Roberts and Kennedy really don’t care about mere words, then we haven’t been paying attention. When the president signed H. R. 1191, his intention was to find a way to get Congress to go along with his folly. This required some words:
It is a simple matter to foresee that if this ever gets to the point of a SCOTUS appeal, the solution to the problem will be to insert a few words into this Act to support the intention of the president. For example, Roberts and Kennedy might go for this:
This is an obvious correction to the text. A simple oversight no doubt.
We just need to be patient. When the mushroom clouds obliterate Tel Aviv and a few Gulf Emirates, then what seems to be a political impossibility will suddenly transform itself into a political necessity. Then our leaders will lead. Let us hope that Iran’s ICBMs perform somewhat below their specifications while we straighten the whole mess out.
bobathome (279337) — 9/10/2015 @ 10:19 am“It’s the law,” says our anarchist, brigand president.
CrustyB (69f730) — 9/10/2015 @ 10:49 amOur leaders couldn’t lead deaf mutes in silent prayer.
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/10/2015 @ 11:36 amOur leaders have delusions of adequacy.
http://www.ahajokes.com/war053.html
I collect comments from bad fitness reports.
Leviticus is right. I am weird.
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/10/2015 @ 11:44 am@Patterico:I guess if you think that elected officials get to define their own duties any way they see fit
Even Kim Davis doesn’t believe this; rather she believes that the law requires that her religious beliefs be accommodated so that she does not have to carry out duties which violate her conscience.
Every government official should be refusing orders that violate their consciences–and spending time in jail for it so that we know they really mean it. It would be a better world on net, even if those people who do it have very different values from mine. A world where people do not follow a multitude to do evil.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 9/10/2015 @ 12:13 pmGabriel,
My fire is directed not at Kim Davis wanting an accommodation (which is appropriate) but at the Milhouses of the world who think elected officials get to determine the nature and extent of their own duties (which is absurd).
Patterico (f4a302) — 9/10/2015 @ 12:51 pmEven if we assume that enough congressmen and senators oppose the deal to not only pass the bill but override the President’s veto, all that that will mean is that the United States will continue the sanctions, while the rest of the “P5+1″ will not.
Bingo. And when Iran is caught violating the terms of the deal, the U.S. will march back to the U.N. Security Council and want to reimpose sanctions, but Russia and China will just laugh and veto that resolution. Our goose was cooked the moment that Samantha Power shepherded this through the Security Council.
JVW (ba78f9) — 9/10/2015 @ 1:19 pmaccording to Ace, this abomination passed today
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 9/10/2015 @ 2:30 pmhttp://twitchy.com/2015/09/10/see-that-blood-its-mine-veteran-j-r-salzman-hammers-mcconnell-boehner-on-the-iran-deal/
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/10/2015 @ 3:16 pmIts great to be the majority leader.
harry reid (31009b) — 9/10/2015 @ 4:42 pmIranian troops have joined forces with Russians on the ground in Syria.
Even as ISIS is redeploying to Europe.
More popcorn in my bunker pronto.
DNF (c70dac) — 9/11/2015 @ 7:03 amoh good the russians are here,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-reportedly-see-familiar-russian-195500946.html;
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/11/2015 @ 7:11 amI’m sure there’s a good reason that Justin Amash isn’t running for president. Probably French-kissed with a fourteen year old girl when he was sixteen, or some such nonsense.
htom (4ca1fa) — 9/11/2015 @ 9:21 amI’m sure there’s a good reason that Justin Amash isn’t running for president. Probably French-kissed with a fourteen year old girl when he was sixteen, or some such nonsense.
Probably an even better reason: he doesn’t want to be a part of the sh*t show that celebrates a low-rent billionaire punk like Donald Trump or a clueless socialist anachronism like Bernie Sanders. We are on the verge of officially passing the threshold into a Stupid Country, and once we do there’s really no going back. Given that, would YOU want to be President? No, these are the days that call for another Nero who can at least play a mean lyre.
JVW (ba78f9) — 9/11/2015 @ 9:38 amMe, President. Oh my, :sings: I’ve got a little list, I’ve got a little list, of people who never will be missed … :/song: actually it’s a very long list so no, I don’t need the temptation.
htom (4ca1fa) — 9/11/2015 @ 9:57 amSo the House votes to reject the deal, 269-162, and the Senate, which is “controlled” by Republicans, doesn’t bother to vote on the deal because 41 Democrats figure their voters will never remember a threatened filibuster that protects the president from having to veto the bill that was Corker’s dream child. And Democratic Senators will never have to vote affirming this horrific deal with Iran.
What a strange world. Cruz, with help of Senator Lee and a few others (Roberts, Rubio) filibustered for a bit less than a day trying to give our gutless rhinos a chance to reconsider their ObamaCare cowardice, and ridiculed for shutting down the efficient operation of the Senate, which at the time had not passed a budget in five years. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and McConnell lets the threat of a filibuster deter him from the one thing he might achieve in this fiasco, forcing the Democrats to vote publicly to support the administration. The country would benefit from watching one Democrat after another step forward and blather about whatever for the next three months. Let them all have their turn shutting down the Senate. Let them have multiple turns. We really wouldn’t notice, except when the continuing resolutions failed to pass to keep the lesser portions of Federal leviathan operating.
Smoke and mirrors really doesn’t capture the situation. This is all done right before our very eyes with no attempt to divert our attention. We’re supposed to bend over and …
Corker needs to resign, right after McConnell. Trump will have field day with this.
bobathome (279337) — 9/11/2015 @ 12:04 pmBarack Obama’s M.O. has always been to exchange a future I.O.U. that he has no intention of making good on for a concession today. He has never kept his word, and that history goes back to his days in the Illinois state senate.
I have no idea why Republicans keep getting taken by this obvious fraud. Everything the man says is a lie. Yet Republicans keep getting suckered by him, from McCain when he believed Obama would keep his promise to accept public funding (and the spending limits that would entail for his 2008 campaign) to Rubio believing Obama would follow the law on border security enforcement if they passed the gang of eight bill.
Until he needed an out. Then, only then did Rubio acknowledge Obama could not be trusted. I’m looking at the man on TV thinking, “Oh, you’re just figuring this out now.”
And now Corker is stunned to find out that after agreeing to turn the treaty provision of the Constitution on it’s head in May in exchange for an empty promise about getting an up or down vote sometime in the future, Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of keeping that promise.
It’s embarrassing.
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:21 amhttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-finds-unexpectedly-high-uranium-104622948.html
Whoops! Unexpectedly, of course.
Anybody think the Iranians didn’t know this teensy little factoid about their large uranium ore reserves in June when Obama was giving away the store to them?
Anybody still believe Kerry and his boss when they claim we don’t need anytime, anywhere inspections because our intelligence capabilities provide us with 100% certainty about the state of their program? Nobody should have believed that before we invaded Iraq. I thought then and I think now that the invasion was justified precisely because without inspectors in-country with unfettered access to all suspected WMD R&D sites there is no way to know for sure whether or not a country has WMD programs or weapons. And that’s a lot easier to hide than large uranium ore reserves, and we couldn’t even find that.
Of course it’s entirely possible this is deception, and that they’re just going to dig holes in the ground because they need to provide cover for the fact that they have a foreign source for uranium. Say, Russia. They could also be digging new underground R&D sites to replace those they gave up to get this awful deal. And to make Israel’s targeting problem harder.
But without anywhere, anytime inspections with inspectors that aren’t hand-picked by the Iranians (or Iranian themselves) there won’t be a way to know for sure.
Steve57 (a36142) — 9/12/2015 @ 1:07 pm