Skip to comments.SENATE REPUBLICANS VOTE TO WAIVE THE CONSTITUTION
Posted on 12/15/2014 7:32:23 AM PST by RicocheT
SENATE REPUBLICANS VOTE TO WAIVE THE CONSTITUTION
There is no question that President Obama's executive amnesty violates the Constitution. Even the president acknowledged back in September that he would be "ignoring the law" to carry out such an action.
Ted Cruz (R-TX)U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) raised a constitutional point of order against the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending that, if sustained, would have sent the bill back to the House to remove amnesty funding.
Unfortunately, a group of Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to reject Cruz's point of order and to ignore the serious constitutional problems with the president's executive amnesty.
These 20 Republicans voted to waive the Constitution.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) John Barrasso (R-WY) Dean Heller (R-NV) Dan Coats (R-IN) Ron Johnson (R-WI) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Susan Collins (R-ME) John McCain (R-AZ) Bob Corker (R-TN) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) John Cornyn (R-TX) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Pat Toomey (R-PA) Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
CR #353, 12/13/14
SENATE PASSES $1.1 TRILLION OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL
After waiving the constitutional point of order, the Senate passed the omnibus bill, which fully funds Obamacare, does nothing to stop the president's amnesty, and includes an earmark to help the DC establishment defeat conservative challengers.
These 24 Republicans voted for the bill.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) John Barrasso (R-WY) John Hoeven (R-ND) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Johnny Isakson (R-GA) John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Johanns (R-NE) Richard Burr (R-NC) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Dan Coats (R-IN) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Susan Collins (R-ME) Pat Roberts (R-KS) John Cornyn (R-TX) John Thune (R-SD) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Pat Toomey (R-PA) Deb Fischer (R-NE) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
CR #354, 12/13/14
Now that ALL of the GOP Rinos came out of the shadows and voted with the Democrats to prop up Obama and do the bidding for Wall Street we can be assured that there will be plenty of part-time jobs available at minimum wage.
Very disappointed with Ron Johnson.
23 out of 45 “republican” senators voted their opinion that executive amnesty was consistent with the Constitution.
Get ready for Democrat president, House and Senate. Conservatives are going to bug out, go Galt, no more votes.
So, how many actual conservatives are there in DC? 10? Maybe?
And on a sad note, this morniing it was reported in The Dead Pelican, that the soon-to-be-Senator Bill Cassidy, in one of his last acts as a Louisiana U.S. Representative, voted -—FOR-— this spending bill!! Of course, fat pig bacon-wrapped-shrimp intervened Louisiana Senator mary landrieu voted -—FOR—— this bill, as well. Louisiana U.S. Senator David Vitter did not. Outgoing U.S. Representative McAllister did not.
Ted Cruz gave a lesson in Washington politics that unfortunately will not get media exposure. At about 11 minutes in he lays bare what this budget bill was written to accomplish .
“Very disappointed with Ron Johnson.”.
Unless the rhino’s have a “plan” in place to make MAJOR changes once they take control of both the house and the senate, I am EXTREMELY disappointed with John and will work to support whomever decides to run against him next time.
VOTE TO WAIVE THE CONSTITUTION, Mopp4 wrote:
Very disappointed with Ron Johnson.
He took a page out of “The Cambodian Kid” fearless Commoder Kerry’s book. And voted against the constitution before he voted for it.
And I do recognize some names in the "Nay" column who meet my own personal definition of RINO.
But I'm not about to throw "RINO" at every one of them.
If this vote truly proves that 24 out of 45 GOP Senators are 100% USDA Certified RINOs, then that leaves only 21 non-RINOs.
If that's accurate, and there are really only 21 out of 100 dependable Senators, then we might as well throw in the towel now.
Alternatively, perhaps we should question our own definitions of "RINO"?
Continually expanding the number of scenarios in which a certain word is applied, diminishes the usefulness of that word. Because when situations later arise where you REALLY need to use it, nobody's going to believe you.
Remember Vizzini using "Inconceivable!" over & over? ...... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
The 21 (of 45 Republicans) Senators who voted NO can, for the most part, be considered the hardcore constitutional conservative faction of the Republican caucus. The have reinforcements coming in January 2015 and further reinforcements should be coming from the 2016 election.
Even though it is not fast enough to suit me, we are making progress.
The communists have infiltrated the entire Federal Government. CWII is on the horizon.
But I have no illusions that the first time any of the nine does something like, say, vote for Mitch over Ted, plenty of my fellow Freepers will instantly throw them under the RINO bus.
You’re right. Even in January there will still be a minority (but an increasingly influential minority) of FIRM conservatives among the Senate Republican caucus. The “vote” for Senate majority leader is merely a formality after the decision has already been made informally. FReepers need to understand that and not come to unfounded conclusions based on that vote. I do believe that there are FReeper posters who do all they can to cause discord and confusion among our ranks.
Will RINO Blunt be running for reelection in 2016?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.