[Brazzmm22]

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.”
Doesn’t this suggest that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 could not have originated from the U.S. Senate.

I can see that the U.S. Senate can amend existing appropriation bills. But the original “bailout” bill was defeated by the House of Representatives.

Shouldn’t this new bill have originated from the House of Representatives? And if so, couldn’t the House of Representatives ignore this bill because it did not follow Constitutional procedure?

[Pining_4_TX]

Ha, ha, you’re a funny guy. How long has it been since anyone in Washington paid any attention to the Constitution?

[Doe Eyes]

“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.”

I think that would apply to a bill associated with taxes. I don't see it affecting this bailout bill.

[4rcane]

are ppl forgetting the other $300 billion that was passed to help mortgage forclosures?

[P-Marlowe]

Shouldn’t this new bill have originated from the House of Representatives? And if so, couldn’t the House of Representatives ignore this bill because it did not follow Constitutional procedure?

We have a Constitution?

Who knew?

[politicket]

Doesn’t this suggest that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 could not have originated from the U.S. Senate.

It didn't 'originate' in the Senate technically. The bill number refers the 'H.R.' meaning House of Representatives.

They basically took an existing House bill that had nothing to do with the bailout and sent it to the Senate.

The Senate then added an amendment that threw out the complete text of the original bill and added the bailout text.

This is what they voted on.

Scummy, I know - but that's the way the do things in Washington (and most states for that matter).

[HapaxLegamenon]

The Senate today did not approve a “bill” but a “comprehensive substitute amendment” to the bill the House shot down. If it passes the House, it still has to go to the Senate for the formal approval of the “bill”.

[Jim Noble]

Bills for printing worthless money can originate in either House.

[Yo-Yo]

Shouldn’t this new bill have originated from the House of Representatives? And if so, couldn’t the House of Representatives ignore this bill because it did not follow Constitutional procedure?

You are absolutely correct, and in this case it did. What the Senate did was to take H.R. 1524, a bill titled "Genetic Fairness in the Workplace" (a bill to prevent discrimination at work based on any genetic testing done), which has already passed the House, and amended it by striking every single stinking word after the title, and inserting the 450 pages of pork as an amendment.

That is why there were two votes last night. One was to accept the "Dodd amendment" which did the above, then the second vote was to pass the amended bill.

Sneaky, but perfectly constitutional.

[Yo-Yo]

Sorry, correction: The original bill was H.R. 1424: PAUL WELLSTONE MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2007

[quack]

This bill was put forth as an Amendment.(The Dodd Amendment)So,it’s not an actual “bill”.

[Yo-Yo]

Alright, as Bullwinkle the Moose would say: "This time for sure."

H.R. 1424: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

(I knew it had something to do with genetic information when I looked it up two days ago. Sorry for the multiple posts.)