Conservative HQ: Republican Senator Bob Corker Is A Traitor

Conservative HQ ^ | 4/15/2015 | George Rasley

[xzins]

Make no mistake. Senator Corker just traded away the Senate’s Constitutional obligation to advise and consent on any treaty. A mere 34 senators could have prevented Obama’s “destroy Israel and the west” granting of nuclear weapons to Iran.

It is a betrayal of the Constitution.

It is a betrayal of Israel.

It is a betrayal of American security.

Corker, if checked, is always a supporter of liberal positions when he is needed. He is a behind the scenes point man pushing for AMNESTY.

[KC Burke]

I knew what this would turn out to resemble after I heard this was the undependable legislator sponsoring it.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who planned to introduce an amendment that would have required the president to certify to Congress that Iran recognizes the state of Israel, wilted and settled for language asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support for Israel’s right to exist.

Not the first 'wilt' for Senator Rubio.

Will be interesting to see where Ted Cruz and Rand Paul come down on all this.

[Servant of the Cross]

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) made his disappointment with his party’s concessions clear. “It is a very limited role, it is a role with very little teeth,” he said of the modified oversight bill. “It is a far cry from advice and consent.”

None of this 'worse than no bill at all' happened without the advice and consent of the so-called 'majority leader' ......

[xzins]

I agree. As soon as I heard Corker, I thought ‘liberal’. And then it was obvious. The Senate doesn’t need to pass a bill that can be vetoed by the president. The Senate has a constitutional power to advise and consent on any treaty. The threshold for that passage is 2/3rds.

This also explains Schumer’s support, as if he actually went against Obama. This scheme of Corker’s ENABLES Obama.

[exnavy]

A purge within the Republican party is required.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I can probably name five politicians these days that I trust...and I wouldn’t turn my back on even those few!

B@stards.

[xzins]

These people know they cannot put up this treaty for approval in the Senate and have it pass.

So, they are rewriting the constitution.

It is open anti-constitutional betrayal by Republicans who think they’re hiding behind this little ‘legislation’ game.

[sport]

In addition to what you enumerated, he is also the Pride of Tennessee. But, since the Constitution is no longer relevant and we live under the law of Obama, all the things you mentioned are moot. Under their god, Obama, members of Congress no longer put on the façade of protecting the interests of the United States of America and its Constitution. Their time is taken up by counting their money and kissing, when he requests it, Obama's ass. Obama was put in the white house for the sole purpose of destroying the United States as a World power. In that he succeeded.

[demshateGod]

It was unanimously passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Rand Paul already voted for it.
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/committee-membership

[demshateGod]

Is required... and impossible. Only a new party will give us any representation.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Missed that. Thank you.

[Berlin_Freeper]

And you know what we do with traitors...

fund their “sex-change” and put them on Twitter.

[OKSooner]

Proof that an Antichrist can’t be an Antichrist without some craven venal cowards to enable and empower him.

[Kenny]

This also explains Schumer’s support, as if he actually went against Obama.

". . but please, please, please! Don't throw me in that briar patch!"

[zzeeman]

As the editors of The Wall Street Journal analyzed it, “The majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34 could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and ‘approved’ the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.”

Yup, those two sentences sum it up... as Mark Levin was describing it last evening, they've turned the Treaty Clause on its head...

Are there enough Senators that understand what is going on here and will vote against it?

[ViLaLuz]

Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
.......................

There’s the answer as to why.

[xzins]

This is pure lawlessness. The Treaty Clause is clear...(1) Advise AND (2) Consent

Obama and the Senate work TOGETHER (advise) on this treaty with Iran. Obama can ignore them, but he then has to submit his work to the Senate for CONSENT.

A straight up Consent vote would require only 34 Senators to reject Obama’s treaty.

They have turned it the other way around. It is illegal behavior on their part.

[Waryone]

I knew Corker was a traitor. He and his Tennessee twin Lamar! are both communists. So his attempt at weakening US law is not news. What I am having difficulty with is understanding this process.

1. They cannot pass a “law” that trumps a constitutional requirement.

2. How can the Senate pass a “law” without the House also voting on it?

I admit I haven’t paid much attention to this since hearing about Corker’s involvement since I have expected his sudden but inevitable betrayal for some time. I just remember when laws required both the House and Senate to pass them and changing a constitutional specification required a constitutional amendment. If I am misunderstanding this situation I would appreciate any help. I just can’t keep up with all these modern day changes and fabrications.