Congress and the Constitution

[rushmc 23]

Under the Constitution the House controls the spending. By law, this body, (the House), creates and passed bills that deal with spending. Period.

So, in this case (refer to the link) the Senate took up a spending bill (Obamas so called jobs bill) which really is a tax and spend bill, (stimulus 2) with no bill from the House.

It seems the law and the Constitution means very little to todays polititions



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

The Constitution has always been something to be ignored. It gets in the way of what politicians want to do. We needed that jobs bill now. And it was nothing more than ideas with a great amount of historical bipartisan support so the Constitutional suggestions should be ignored.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The Constitution has always been something to be ignored. It gets in the way of what politicians want to do. We needed that jobs bill now. And it was nothing more than ideas with a great amount of historical bipartisan support so the Constitutional suggestions should be ignored.

How sad is that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

I realize it's rude to comment on spelling, and I've likely made a spelling mistake somewhere in this reply, but as much as you post in SC I can't believe you still don't know how to spell politician.

In regards to your content, I assume you are refering to Article I, Section 7 (yes, I had to look it up) which says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." That says that bills originate in the House. It doesn't say that only the House votes on them. In fact, it specifically says that the Senate may propose or concur. If you read the rest of the Article, it explains how bills must be passed by both houses, and signed by the President. Your Constitutional comment doesn't seem to be based on the Constitution.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Seems very clear to me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

To further the point

Quote

The House, directly elected by the people, received authority to originate all tax bills. The Senate, however, can amend a tax bill, and the support of both houses is necessary for the bill to become law.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Neither one of us is a legal scholar, but I think it comes down to what "originate" means. If it means, "is passed by," then you are correct. If it mean, "is proposed by," then I don't see the problem.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Neither one of us is a legal scholar, but I think it comes down to what "originate" means. If it means, "is passed by," then you are correct. If it mean, "is proposed by," then I don't see the problem.

And what "is , "is" I suppose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

And what "is , "is" I suppose

Nope. Just what is 'originate' intended to mean. Any comment on that?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And what "is , "is" I suppose

Nope. Just what is 'originate' intended to mean. Any comment on that?

The bill MUST originate in the House.

The Senated can not create, vote on, pass and then send an original tax bill to the House

The House must see it and act on it first

Clear enough?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

originate [əˈrɪdʒɪˌneɪt]
vb
1. to come or bring into being
2. (intr) US and Canadian (of a bus, train, etc.) to begin its journey at a specified point
origination n
originator n

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

The bill MUST originate in the House.

The Senated can not create, vote on, pass and then send an original tax bill to the House

The House must see it and act on it first

Clear enough?

That's your interpretation. I wonder what someone who knows what they're talking about would think. Anyway, I'm willing to bet that procedurally what the Senate did was propose an amendment to a draft bill.

Of course, I suppose that you also object to the Senate's refusal to confirm hundreds of Obama appointees, most notably for the Consumer Protection Commission, since the process of allowing a single Senator to use a secret hold is not mentioned in the Constitution.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Dude, can you just post a single reply. It's a pain in the ass responding to multiple posts all the time.

BTW, nice dictionary definition. I don't see where it says anything about voting or acting on the thing being originated. Would it be okay if the Houise wrote a draft bill and the Senate proposed amendments to that, or does your definition of 'originate' require a bill to be passed by the House first? What if a draft bill had been passed by a House committee? Is that good enough?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I suppose that you also object to the Senate's refusal to confirm hundreds of Obama appointees

I do. give an up or down vote. The GOP objected when hundreds of Bush appointees were sat on by the Dems. Now the GOP is returning the favor - to objection by the Dems. Then the GOP will object when appointees are sat on...


Imagine the screams that will come when the GOP uses the nuclear option that Reid used.

Oh, yeah. The GOP DID threaten a nuclear option a few years ago because the Dems were using filibusters to delay judicial appointees.

Now, rush actually has a constitutional argument. It's got some validity, but there are arguments that the bill doesn't apply to that section. However, we're mainly discussing procedural rules that are not in the Constitution but apply.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I suppose that you also object to the Senate's refusal to confirm hundreds of Obama appointees

I do. give an up or down vote. The GOP objected when hundreds of Bush appointees were sat on by the Dems. Now the GOP is returning the favor - to objection by the Dems. Then the GOP will object when appointees are sat on...


Imagine the screams that will come when the GOP uses the nuclear option that Reid used.

Oh, yeah. The GOP DID threaten a nuclear option a few years ago because the Dems were using filibusters to delay judicial appointees.

Now, rush actually has a constitutional argument. It's got some validity, but there are arguments that the bill doesn't apply to that section. However, we're mainly discussing procedural rules that are not in the Constitution but apply.

Is there anything in the Constitution that limits what the Senate can discuss and vote on? If the Senate chose to pass a resolution saying that the Sun should stop in its tracks and the Moon is made of green cheese, is there something to stop them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now, rush actually has a constitutional argument. It's got some validity, but there are arguments that the bill doesn't apply to that section. However, we're mainly discussing procedural rules that are not in the Constitution but apply.

That's my point. I don't think the process used on this bill was necessarily contrary to the Constitution. Perhaps it was, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal on its face. I'm against rules for rules sake. If rushmc's concerns would have been satisfied by the House Speaker writing on a piece of paper, "Jobs Bill: TBD," and sending it to the Senate for amendment, then what's the point?

- Dan G

[JohnRich 4]

Related story:

Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without Additional Congressional Authorization"

Source: RealClearPolitics

[billvon 3,120]

>Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without
>Additional Congressional Authorization"

I bet the people who supported the Bush declaration of war with Iraq will scream bloody murder over this.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without
>Additional Congressional Authorization"

I bet the people who supported the Bush declaration of war with Iraq will scream bloody murder over this.

And rightly so.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without
>Additional Congressional Authorization"

I bet the people who supported the Bush declaration of war with Iraq will scream bloody murder over this.

Last I remember Bush had the authority based on a vote in congress

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without
>Additional Congressional Authorization"

I bet the people who supported the Bush declaration of war with Iraq will scream bloody murder over this.

Last I remember Bush had the authority based on a vote in congress

Amazing what feeding false intel to voters will do, isn't it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>Last I remember Bush had the authority based on a vote in congress

Wow, I must have missed that. Can you provide a link to the Congressional declaration of war, a power clearly called out in the Constitution?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Last I remember Bush had the authority based on a vote in congress

Wow, I must have missed that.

Bush asked for authorization for the use of force against Iraq, which was passed 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate.

Quote

Can you provide a link to the Congressional declaration of war, a power clearly called out in the Constitution?

Can you provide a link for authorization of force for Syria?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Obama Tells Advisers To Find How To Approve Stimulus Projects "Without
>Additional Congressional Authorization"

I bet the people who supported the Bush declaration of war with Iraq will scream bloody murder over this.

Last I remember Bush had the authority based on a vote in congress

Amazing what feeding false intel to voters will do, isn't it?

Yep I guess you would have since it would make your position weak.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Can you provide a link to the Congressional declaration of war, a power clearly called out in the Constitution?

Yet another of the messed up ways things have gone. Congress unfortunately delegated the power to the President for such things. Bush, Sr., in fact, set the model for modern presidential warmaking with Gulf 1. He's commander in Chief and he can do it, he said. Congress wimped out and didn't challenge him.

I like the words of Daniel Ellsberg - of Pentagon Papers fame. He was appalled by the War Powers Act and still is. Ellsberg said that Bush, at least, gave lip service to the War Powers Act and asked Congress for an authorization to do what he was going to do, anyway. Ellsberg said that Obama ignored it - the usurpation of power is complete

Ellsberg rightly says that the crimes against him would be legal nowadays. He's also correct.

Presidents and Congress have a long history of ignoring the Constitution. It's why the Supreme Court is there. On the other hand, such activities have long been something subtle and indeed hidden. I'm not going to suggest that the US hasn't engaged in assassination. We've just always been covert about it, taken steps for plausible deniabilty, and paid lip service to being such good guys.

Now we brag about it! We're proud of it. The days of Saddam Hussein getting medical treatment, etc, before being handed over and executed are gone. After all, our President has a Nobel Peace Prize.

My wife is hotter than your wife.