If the House passes a resolution stating the president hasn’t followed the law by not disclosing the content of so-called “side deals” and therefore the president doesn’t have the authority to implement the Iran agreement, Obama would almost certainly move ahead anyway. In many ways, however, that’s exactly the point conservatives want to make. This is a lawless president, they say. The Iran deal should be nullified because Obama didn’t follow the law, they’ll argue. Let’s take him to court, they’ll probably conclude. If Republicans are just playing out the string on an Iran deal that’s already done, there are some in the GOP who think Congress might as well reserve the right to make its case in court. At least, that’s what Roskam seems to be arguing. ↓ Story continues below ↓ And while Roskam’s office told CQ Roll Call on Wednesday that “all options are on the table” about whether he’d vote against the rule to bring forward the disapproval resolution, it’s clear there are plenty of Republicans who would.
“I was just hoping to come here, get my picture taken a few hundred times, make some large, grandiose statements about the dangers of making Christianity illegal…” SATIRE
The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government.
In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted Article III and Article VI to give the federal courts final say over the meaning of the federal Constitution and federal laws and the power to order state and federal officials to comply with its rulings. The federal courts can make decisions only on cases that are brought to them by a person who is actually affected by the law. Federal courts are not allowed to create cases on their own, even if they believe a law is unconstitutional, nor are they allowed to rule on hypothetical scenarios.
Never mind that there is not one Congressional Republican who supports the accord. Never mind that the disapproval vote would’ve seen more than a dozen Democrats buck a president of their own party. House Republicans are now resisting Boehner’s attempt to bring the bill to the floor, because they believe Obama has not disclosed to Congress what they call “side deals” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.