seems like the longer we go WITHOUT a bailout bill... the less it's required.
Posted on 09/30/2008 2:14:03 PM PDT by Kackikat
So you got one too?
maybe God is out of mercy for a people who just killed their umteenth million unborn baby.
This may be good, ultimately. Liberty tree needs nourishment.
It will be inconsequential. Or they will just remove the original content altogether and substitute the bailout bill.
Preferably the Senate will wait for the New Bill that may actually accomplish somthing for the future of banking with constraints.
I'll wager that the Senate will actually wait for a new bill, because their work on their own bill will spur the House to act. But, I seriously doubt it will fix the root problem: too many Democratic constituencies would scream bloody murder.
That’s funny.
Let's consult The US Constitution (<- That's a link) for an answer.
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential VetoAll bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ...
Now, if a bill for raising revenue was the same as a spending bill, the answer would be yes. But in fact, a bill for raising revenue is a tax bill, rather than an authorization or spending bill.
So, I conclude that the answer to the question you posed, "Do not spending bills have to originate in the House, per the constitution?" is a big, fat, resounding
Aren't they on the same side or did one just become a Republican in order to past a "bi-partisan" bill?
They desperately want THIS bill. Something stinks and it's not this bill.
Right, but there are technicalities the Senate can use.
Bottom line though, this is a non-starter.
Plus, I bet if they forced a vote, it would be 20-80.
Figures Hillary would support the bailout (status quo).
Out of the 10 or so Senators who spoke today, all of them spoke at least a little bit on the bailout, and all of them were in favor. McConnell, Reid, Domenici, Kyl, Bond, Bennett, Alexander, Warner and Dodd. Dorgan spoke out, not in favor (check him out on Nov 4, 1999 on the same subject! (November 4, 1999).
The only procedural issue is one of timing. Any Senator can delay a new bill by objecting to proceed to its consideration. That was impossible with the bill the House just rejected, because the House used a procedural trick of putting the new bill in an old package.
sounds like someone is stomping for a position...........V.P. maybe?
Who knows, the buzzheads have always been a problem. I saw horseface on Oreilly last night, and that is one disgusting man.
“That was impossible with the bill the House just rejected, because the House used a procedural trick of putting the new bill in an old package.”
So you’re saying the Dems did that to get the vote to the Senate where it would pass?
This is interesting. US Constitution Online
Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that only the House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too - is this true?"
A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1 Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.
The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."
However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.
The way he was ranting and waving his hand I though he was Ralph Nader. Than he had to tell BOR he needs to educate the people on this legislation. He must have lost a lot of money (sic) I mean Teresa must have lost a lot of money yesterday.
Either the House or the Senate can initiate legislation. But it is always required that it pass BOTH houses of Congress.
House Republicans are not talking (at least publicly that I know of) about bringing up a new bill anytime soon. But some House Democrats have adopted Newt’s ideas and are talking about “their” new bill.
True to form, as thieves go and blowhards go, when trying to take the credit for a good idea. Nothing changes.
Congressional leadership of both parties was involved in the decision to put the bailout in the vehicle of H.R.3997, a bill that originated 11 months ago, and bounced between the chambers on its original subject in November and December 2007.
The reason for using that old vehicle was to eliminate all possibility of a stall in the Senate, should an objecting Senator object to proceeding to the bill. The objection to taking it up would be overcome with cloture, but that adds delay.
Once taken up, there can be another objection, that to proceeding to vote on passage. The cloture widget would come out again to overcome the objection to voting on final passage.
I haven't heard any Senator express objection to the extent they would stall passage by objecting to taking up the bill. The usual "offenders" in contentious things are Coburn, DeMint and rarely Sessions (on the right) and Dodd, Feingold on the left. Dorgan might object to the rescue / bail-out / buy-in / fleecing of the taxpayer measure, depending on what it contains in the way of prevention for repeats.
As long as the legislation doesn't raise money. I suppose spending a trillion dollars doesn't actually require congress to raise the money.
seems like the longer we go WITHOUT a bailout bill... the less it's required.
I had heard it was the Relative Constitution. Thanks for correcting me.
But wouldn’t the reason for attaching a failed bill to that HR3997 to prevent the need for the Senate to have to bother with it? That way a new bill can be sent directly to the Senate for a vote? Didn’t the Senate already take up the Bailout bill and say they would pass it, prior to the House debate anyway? Why would it need to go to Senate, until a bill that is agreeable to House overall is decided. That only takes up more time.
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.