Nuclear arms treaty clears key Senate hurdle
December 21st, 2010
03:31 PM ET
10 years ago

Nuclear arms treaty clears key Senate hurdle

Washington (CNN) - The new nuclear arms control pact with Russia cleared a key procedural hurdle Tuesday as the Senate voted to cut off debate on the measure.

The 67-28 vote indicated a near-certain win for President Barack Obama on one of his top foreign policy priorities as Democrats continued to push through a series of measures before the end of the lame-duck session of Congress.


Filed under: START treaty
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA/John Boehner The Crybaby

    It's about time Congress stopped lallygagging. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for all the work that is going on during this lame duck. If they didn;t obstruct every single thing for the last 2 years, maybe they'll be home right now. Frankly, I wish Sen. Reid has them working on Christmas Day. Let's see how the like that.

    December 21, 2010 03:36 pm at 3:36 pm |
  2. T'sah from Virginia

    And yet another ACCOMPLISHMENT that is about to be placed under President Obama's umbrella!!!

    I will continue to support our leader, President Obama, as he continues to MOVE AMERICA FORWARD!!!

    December 21, 2010 03:48 pm at 3:48 pm |
  3. Al-NY,NY

    ...and the "RINO" labels will commence from Fatty, Shamitty, and Failin Palin soon enough

    December 21, 2010 03:52 pm at 3:52 pm |
  4. Mikey

    Another victory for the most legislatively accomplished Administration of our lifetimes. Someday all the Obama haters will wake up and realize they were on the wrong side of history. Then perhaps not.

    December 21, 2010 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  5. JustMe

    I find it strange that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs endorsed this and that it has the full support of our military, but Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) said the pact was "deeply flawed" and "a dangerous step towards undermining our national security." If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs endorses it, and Republicans are still against it, then it seems to me that this is not about national security for them, but instead this is about playing political games and trying to one-up the President.

    December 21, 2010 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  6. concerned liberal

    @Tsah "And yet another ACCOMPLISHMENT "

    Another? More like finally. I don't think we can be too proud of breaking his promise over on taxes, conitnuing the assassination squads, not closing prison camps, etc. etc., silence on gays while others do the work, silence on immigration, taking big bucks from corporate america, etc. etc.

    What fantasy cartoon are you watching?

    December 21, 2010 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  7. Wire Palladin, S. F.

    I wonder what lies Fox will make up so this is not covered.

    December 21, 2010 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
  8. Sniffit

    "What part of Judge Hudson's decision is wrong? How is he misinterpreting the law? His decision is only 42 pages long, and is written in relatively plain language."

    The central premise of Hudson's decision is essentially circular incorrect tautology...that if the Commerce Clause doesn't save the HCR legislation, then the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot (putting it in very simplified terms). He wrote the following:

    "If a person’s decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution."

    This is blatantly incorrect and there are many highly respected legal scholars fuming at it (not just this legal scholar), pointing out precisely the point I just made. He was just plain wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause stands alone and does not depend upon the authorty granted by other parts of the Constitution in order to convey its own authority to the federal government. In essence, Hudon's decision highlights precisely the means by which the GOP/conservatives believe they can castrate the entire federal government, because if his decision stands and is upheld, he wil have effectively written the Necessary and Proper Clause out of the Constitution by mooting it, and all the precedent and contemporary governmental activity based thereon will become invalid unless another provision can be found to authorize it.

    As for plain language, well, plain language just makes faulty legal reasoning easier to find, which cuts both ways really. He used plain language, which is a point in his favor in my book, because the minute you get flowery, obtusely written decisions or pleadings in front of you, replete with evidence that the author is so concerned with sounding smart (not being smart) that he loves the MS Word thesaurus function...then you know the jerk is trying to hide something.

    December 21, 2010 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |