Ted Cruz was right: US officials conclude Iran deal violates existing federal law

[NightHawkeye]

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law | Fox News

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
...
“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”
​

 

[brinny]

...it took 'em long enough.....

sheeeesh!!!

but on another note:

 

[FanthatSpark]

Good article , and seems transparency won the day. We the people support by proxy the decision makers in a "trust" that can no longer be allowed in this arena of foreign policy yet just as important is domestic transparency lost to the masses for they know not what a BILL/Policy is in defunding education so the haves have and the have nots are slave to survival ($$getten paid$$, with no education) of obtaining a dollar. Combine that with the inequality gap even the Middle Class are beginning to see and maybe, just maybe we start sharing these articles to our churches and social networks that the "Trust" has to come to an end. Transparency, regime change, here at home that crushes class war... 1%ter, Middle and poor also termed status quo. The Dollar can no longer be the "Be all end all" system. Ya know... that which is broken and debated that although the reasons behind dollar acquisition is just for our children's sake . The separation of the inequality gap can not go on any longer. Much less our President breaking the OP Fed law, supporting and funding ISIS that kills Christians or any other religion not there own paid for by us by proxy of tax dollars. We kill ourselves is what I am saying by supporting ISIS with our tax dollar because we trusted an ilk that has no morality. That has to come to an end yesterday, lol.

Ranting today (In Truth) NightHawkeye and thanks for the platform. The issues are legion now and we the people have allowed it even to our self destruction (Christians killing Christians by proxy that we over here fund, the killing over there) to kill ourselves for we Trusted our regime/Government that doesn't posses anymore morality. Ranting... Ranting... ranting... Yet truth, truth, truth.

 

[bhsmte]

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law | Fox News

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
...
“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”
​

Who are these "senior US officials"?

 

[NightHawkeye]

nm

 

[FanthatSpark]

Can it be grounds for impeachment? we gotta get this man out of that seat .

 

[NightHawkeye]

Can it be grounds for impeachment? we gotta get this man out of that seat .

If Congress had been doing its job, they would have impeached Obama years ago. Additional grounds won't make any difference.

 

[Arcangl86]

The article seems to be miss reading the text. The text does state that foreign subs were subject to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However the sanctions empowered by that act are issued by executive order. So I'm not seeing a conflict here.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The article seems to be miss reading the text. The text does state that foreign subs were subject to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However the sanctions empowered by that act are issued by executive order. So I'm not seeing a conflict here.

Of course. Obama and John Kerry have been so misunderstood.

 

[Bible Page]

Can it be grounds for impeachment? we gotta get this man out of that seat .

Leave it to a cute baby avatar dreamer to hope for the impossible.
Firstly, it's Fox news. I agree with the question, who are these senior U.S officials making this so called find?

And do we really think Obama will allow a pesky little thing like the law that says, no, you can't do that, stop him from doing that?

 

[FanthatSpark]

why so? Impossible ? We did it to Nixon. Is this system so sunk to the dollar now not the people? Quit paying taxes on a mass scale and I bet this nation of classes wakes up. No impeachment, no tax paid. From state to federal every Christian as a nation quit feeding this beast and take our government back can be done. Not so impossible.

 

[NightHawkeye]

why so? Impossible ? We did it to Nixon. Is this system so sunk to the dollar now not the people? Quit paying taxes on a mass scale and I bet this nation of classes wakes up. No impeachment, no tax paid. From state to federal every Christian as a nation quit feeding this beast and take our government back can be done. Not so impossible.

That's the thing. The time frame for what you want is longer than Obama's term. Pursuing impeachment, which would be much harder than repealing Obamacare, given the current Republican leadership is simply not going to happen ... regardless of how good the case is.

In truth, impeachment is not now necessary. Obama is being continually confronted now anyway. People rose to the formidable task and have done so admirably.

 

[Arcangl86]

Of course. Obama and John Kerry have been so misunderstood.

No I think their intentions are clear. However this article seems to be built on a certain understanding of the law that doesn't look viable to me.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No I think their intentions are clear. However this article seems to be built on a certain understanding of the law that doesn't look viable to me.

Ahh, by that you mean an interpretation which contradicts what Obama wants to do?

 

[FanthatSpark]

O.K. Lets hold the tax dollar hostage to removing the dollar from the electoral process. This status quo has to end too. Pull mathematicians and economists Robert Reich for president! Who show us the tax scale flipped from congresses and presidents from JFK to Obama from 90% the Corporations/1%ter paid before JFK to the now 80% middle and poor pay. None of the present candidates speak of this for they serve the dollar not the people. Sorry NHE, I know my posts stray off topic but we cant continue to feed this beast any more. I personally refuse. No tax from this Christian will be paid until I see a candidate say and win the presidency with these slogans.

No more inequality ... Tax scale back to 90% 1%ter 10% middle and poor.Sub clause 50/50 first term. Cant get him shot, lol.
My administration will rid this system of dollar servers for Moral people to reclaim congress.
THAT is a president for the people . None of those running now.

 

[Arcangl86]

Ahh, by that you mean an interpretation which contradicts what Obama wants to do?

No, I mean an interpretation that seems to be going against the plain sense of the text. Congress did make sanctions issued under the IEEPA apply to foreign subsidies, but those sanctions are issued by executive order, so Obama can choose to repeal them if he wants to. He can't repeal all of them, but a good chunk of Iran sanctions are actually executive actions, not legislation.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, I mean an interpretation that seems to be going against the plain sense of the text. Congress did make sanctions issued under the IEEPA apply to foreign subsidies, but those sanctions are issued by executive order, so Obama can choose to repeal them if he wants to. He can't repeal all of them, but a good chunk of Iran sanctions are actually executive actions, not legislation.

Apparently, judging from the cited references, some learned legal scholars disagree with your opinion.

 

[Arcangl86]

Apparently, judging from the cited references, some learned legal scholars disagree with your opinion.

Ok. And some agree with me. The reason we have courts is to resolve disputes, though I don't really see the other side's argument. For instance the Fox article states " However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself", which is true only if you interpret "may" as must. It was granting him abilities, not mandating he act a certain way. Of course the court system might find my view is incorrect, but let's wait and see what happens.