Implementation Day for the Iranian Nuke-Pact looms on December 15 and, regardless of whether it is worthy of support, it must barred because it was adopted illegally. Traversing this deadline will permit America to release $150B to Iran, greatly enhancing the potency of the #1 state-sponsor of terrorism.

Because this “deal” is interwoven with the overall foreign policy being conducted by President Obama, undermining its legitimacy would serve to force a global reassessment of his leadership, particularly recognizing explosive growth of the Islamic State. Articles detailing the adverse impact of his brand of Islamophilia are legion, but proposed remedies are lacking.

Indeed, critics of his having aligned with geopolitical enemies, Iran and Russia, to fight the Islamic State appears to be the latest manifestation of what intuitively appears foolhardy. For example, Walid Phares told Fox News that Obama’s behavior is derivative of his having aligned with Shi’ite Iran and Syria against surrounding Sunni countries (listen @ 8:20).

On the heels of Obama’s flawed defense of containment on ABC, even the Washington Post attacked his petulant defense of counterproductive policies and CNN’s Christiane Amanpour quoted an international consensus as having failed.

Thus, numerous generic legal approaches have been detailed in a dozen heavily-hyperlinked analyses dating back to May, culminating on September 29 as summarized on October 2. Causes-of-action have been promulgated by individuals and groups (Bank Markazi v. Peterson & BNP Paribas) focusing on recompense for terrorism, and states may attempt to perpetuate sanctions.  

Three are predicated on Congressional action that would undermine the entire agreement. 

First, the pact is a “treaty” rather than an executive(-legislative) agreement because it is a long-term diplomatic covenant, rather than a short-term commercial deal (Gibbons v. Ogden).

To exert its constitutional authority in this regard, senators could act collectively by invoking the “nuclear option” or as individuals if 34 senators (a sufficient number to prevent ratification of a treaty) were to challenge the process that had negated their votes (Coleman v. Miller). More than 34 senators voted in April to claim it is a treaty.

Second, the House recognized Obama had withheld inspection-documents that had falsely been claimed to be secret, thereby voiding the ability to trigger the Corker-Cardin Act. Former IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen exposed this cover-up, when he revealed that the United States, as an IAEA board-member, can seek release of the secret documents.

Thus, former-Speaker John Boehner had said a lawsuit “is very possible” and Speaker Paul Ryan can now promote litigation by invoking the precedent that the House can indeed achieve standing when challenging executive overreach.

Third, Corker-Cardin was passed under false pretenses and, therefore, cannot be applied to the pact, recognizing that the gravamen of the Supreme Court’s opinion that perpetuated ObamaCare was its interpretation of “congressional intent.”

Here, the administration repeatedly -- and falsely -- told Congress and reassured the public that any pact ultimately assessed under the INARA would not afford Iran relief from conventional arms sanctions, as recently as one week prior to July 14, when the JCPOA was signed (view @ 1:12). By its voiding of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, Iran’s missile program is now alive and well.

Exemplifying how Congress can remedy identified concerns, after U.S. officials concluded the Iran pact had violated federal law constraining foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations, Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Terrorist Designation Act (S.2094). It both expresses the sense of Congress that it meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization and should be so designated by the Secretary of State, but it also mandates that the State Department either concur or specify which criteria have not been met.

Andrew C. McCarthy has chronicled efforts by Sen. Cruz to derail the pact by targeting bankers, and he concluded that Sen. McConnell must advocate passage of a resolution declaring that Obama’s default renders the Corker review process moot. Rep. Louie Gohmert has introduced a vehicle to accomplish this in the House (#410).

If the GOP-controlled Congress fails to file litigation enjoining Obama from implementing the pact, Cruz’s haunting admonition would enhance worldwide fear of Islamists:  America would become the major funder of global terrorism.

Recent comments by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry dramatize the urgency of undermining the Administration’s narrative. Kerry identified a “rationale” for the Charlie Hebdo mass-murder.

And Obama undermined his anti-Gitmo narrative when he recognized that Islamist recruitment is stimulated by territorial control:  “…the narrative that ISIL developed of creating this caliphate makes it more attractive to potential recruits.”  

Obama’s “legacy” campaign to empower 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 Republican Committee-Person and political activist.