THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POTUS BHO CHAOS STEAM ROLLS ANOTHER ORDER BYPASSING LAWS TO GET THE AGENDA AS THE TREATY GOVERNING LAWS OF THE SENATE FROM ARTICLE II, SEC 2, PAR 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION TAKES THE BACK SEAT FOR A TERROR HOSTAGE DEAL FOR NO NUCS IN LIEU OF $150 BILLION IN FREE FROZEN ASSETS, ALL THE OIL FOR THE EU TO SWIM JUST SO IRAN CAN FINANCE ITS WAR AGAINST THE WEST–THE TRUE LEFTIST AGENDA– SO NOW IN ORDER FOR LAWS TO BE FOLLOWED ONE MUST GO TO COURT TO QUESTION THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ORDERED–THE TRUE INSANITY AT WORK IN THE NEW WORLD OF THE USA

Activist lawyer Larry Klayman, a veteran of courtroom battles with presidents, including Bill Clinton and George Bush, is suing President Obama and others over the newly announced deal with Iran, alleging its ratification process is unconstitutional.

“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,” the action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, explains.

Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, previously has sued Cuban interests, Iranian officials and others.

His new complaint names 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 – which could give Tehran hundreds of billions of dollars and allow it to pursue its nuclear program – 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.

“The defendants gave away the carefully crafted protections of the U.S. Constitution meant to preserve the liberties and ‘provide for the common defense’ of American citizens,” Klayman explained. “Obama’s Iran treaty will release $150 billion in assets frozen after Iran’s acts of war in 1979 and repeatedly thereafter. INARA removes restrictions on oil sales and business. Iran will be flush with cash that will finance terrorism against the United States, Europe, and Israel and finance unrestricted development of nuclear weapons.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/obama-sued-for-iran-deal-that-abrogated-constitution/

Klayman cites Supreme Court precedent that the Constitution is the controlling standard.

“As a result, a device, invention or scheme which departs from, changes or disregards the constitutional requirement of Article II, Sec. 2, Par. 2, of the Constitution – even in legislation validly enacted by the U.S. Congress – is unconstitutional and void under the same analysis previously applied by the Supreme Court,” the complaint states.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/obama-sued-for-iran-deal-that-abrogated-constitution/