I like the vote ...

Yes, I supported (still do) The Patriot Act.

However, the 3 aspects in question were (as Jambo noted) related primarily to domestic surveillance (warrantless wiretapping & the like); and as such provided the perfect opportunity to judge whether the Tea Party acolytes were in fact what they claimed to be: Constitutionalists first, Republicans second. Had they overwhelmingly sided with the GOP it would have left them open to cries of hypocrisy. They didn't disappoint. The Republican establishment better get it through their heads, these guys (and gals) are loyal to principle over Party, even if it means voting with the very Democrats they ran against only 3 months prior.

Personally, how would I have voted given I support both the Patriot Act and the Tea Party principle of all legislation meeting the Constitutional test?

Answer - I would have voted the measures down, and for a simple reason. I supported and find rational these measures being implemented in the wake of 9/11. We awakened to the realization that we were at war. But so we were on December 7th, 1941. And I certainly wouldn't of supported FDR (& his predecessors) ability to rifle through all letters sent in and out of the US (and the various other ramifications of the CIC's war powers), indefinitely. And in this case to indefinitely extend these powers (or afford knee-jerk renewal) to the executive branch has particular dangers because all of our actions post 9/11 have been absent a formal declaration of war (something all 3 of us have lamented). My meaning is if such powers are renewed indefinitely with no clear, measurable and specific declaration then such powers can easily morph into a matter of course, i.e. we awake in 2o years to find such "special provisions" being the normal routine. An assumed power. So if Obama wants them back, if his Intel tells him he needs these powers restored to properly protect the nation, then let him go out and make that case and say the words: "we are at war." I am willing to give any CIC the benefit of the doubt on such matters. But HE has to make that case, explain the threat, illustrate the need. I will not renew them simply because "that's the way it always has been", less we risk this becoming the way it always shall be.

Rep Michelle Bachman (R) MN, a prominent figure in Tea Party politics, gave a separate response to the SoTU on behalf of the Representatives she has dubbed "The Constitutional Caucus." The nay votes came from this very group. As I said, they are proving loyal to principles over Party even when that means tossing their Party elders down the stairs and reversing legislation implemented by the last Republican president. But isn't this exactly the type of behavior the average American claims to want from his politicians?

I'll tell you what, these guys sure as hell better stick together, for their enemies are now everywhere. The long knives will be out from here forward.