Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rabscuttle385

I thought spending and funding bills must originate in the House.

Given that, shouldn’t the “bailout” spending bill go back to the senate under a new name, and get voted on by the senate, as is spelled out in the constitution?

I was told that the reason the House could not modify the Senate bill in any way was because of this.


47 posted on 10/03/2008 12:43:31 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DBrow

That’s adorable. You still think that the Constitution is in effect!


87 posted on 10/03/2008 12:56:10 PM PDT by frankiep (Every socialist is a disguised dictator - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: DBrow
-- I thought spending and funding bills must originate in the House. --

What makes you think this originated in the Senate? Did not the Senate take the House-rejected bailout language, and amend it slightly? Is not the "pork" and etc. bill HR 6049, originated in the House, merely amended by the Senate? And what the House passed, HR 1424, that too is a House originated bill (albeit, just a shell to be used as a vehicle), amended by stuffing House originated bailout, and House-originated pork into the same bag.

-- shouldn't the "bailout" spending bill go back to the senate under a new name --

No. The Senate already passed exactly the same language the House did - the Senate just did it first. The Senate didn't originate the stuff, it amended House-originated stuff, and sent the amended version back to the House. The House agreed with the stuff, as amended.

173 posted on 10/03/2008 1:46:46 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson