The Associated Press reports that
The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark deal to rein in Iran’s nuclear program and authorized measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions, but also approved a provision that would automatically reinstate the harsh measures if Tehran reneges on its promises.
European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels immediately followed suit, endorsing the agreement between Iran and six major powers and taking the first step to lift EU sanctions.
President Barack Obama told reporters he hopes the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, where there is strong opposition to the deal, will pay attention to the “broad international consensus,” stressing that the deal is “by far our strongest approach to ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.”
But House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of “ignoring the concerns of the American people” by allowing “such a consequential vote” to go ahead in the U.N. just 24 hours after submitting the agreement to Congress, which has 60 days to consider it. “This is a bad start for a bad deal,” he said.
While sharp differences remain between the United States and Iran, ambassadors from both countries called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy.
Under the agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.
Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran’s real goal is to build atomic weapons. Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo reiterated that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared nuclear weapons “Haram,” which means forbidden by the Muslim faith in Arabic.
Khoshroo said Iran promises to be “resolute in fulfilling its obligations” and expects all other parties to the agreement to meet their commitments. This is the only way diplomacy can “prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression,” he said.
The Iranian ambassador said the agreement “provides a solid foundation for further and more effective diplomatic interaction.” And he expressed hope that the agreement heralds “a new chapter” in the country’s relations with the Security Council and the six powers that negotiated the deal – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said the deal gives Iran “an opportunity to prove to the world that it intends to pursue a nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes.”
“If Iran seizes that opportunity … then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement,” she said.
But Power said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”
So, just who did Obama feel was more important than the Legislative Branch of OUR Government?
The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members:
There are five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date): Angola (2016), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Nigeria (2015), Spain (2016), and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016)
There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?
On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…
The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.
…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.
Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s going to the United Nations first, instead of the Congress of the United States of America, with this simplistic work of naiveté, which Obama and Kerry are trying to pass of as a “treaty”, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.
The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above you in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.
To summarize, we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.
America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.
Congress needs to tell Obama to roll up that document of his capitulation, disguised as a treaty, and place it between him and the camel he rode in on.
Until He Comes,