The law professor forgot that Congress comes before the U.N.
We learned today that the U.N. Security Council has voted its support for the Iran deal:
The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the Iran nuclear deal, though the show of support was interrupted shortly afterward by a war of words between the American and Iranian ambassadors.
By the way, the Iranian representative got angry that U.S. Ambassador Powers brought up human rights.
Human rights? Why weren't we screaming about human rights before the deal was agreed to? It's a bit late now to talk about human rights after we just handed a chunk of change to Iran.
Of course, the real question is this: why are we going to the U.N. before going the U.S. Congress?
The answer is twofold:
First, President Obama knows that he does not have a majority of Congress. He is hoping that a U.N. vote will influence Democrats. They will hear the White House say that the U.S. must join the community of nations. Is this the same community where very few leaders are elected by their people?
The deal is in trouble with Democrats because of Israel. This deal is a loyalty test for Democrats, as reported by The Hill.
Second, the U.N.'s approval distracts us from the insanity of this deal. The Obama-Kerry approach is based on a dangerous idea – i.e., let's be nice, and they will be nice. Can anyone cite a historical example for this? Or is this another example of Obama believing that his personality is the bottom line?
Of course, the members of the U.N. Security Council approved this deal because they want to sell to Iran. They could care less about nuclear facilities or the threats to Israel. They want markets, period.
We have a man in The White House who was sold to us as an expert on the constitution – i.e., the constitutional law professor. With all due respect to President Obama, I think that he's forgotten the document that he used to teach, whether it's immigration executive orders or going to the U.N. before Congress.