Replies

But the ‘new program’ cannot become real until it's signed by the Pres. I am aware of bills being held by either the Senate or the House for any reason, but to be real and final they must be signed by the Pres.. It is only then that reconciliation, budgeting can take place, because they have to reference the programs the budgets will be applied to.

So in essence, the Speaker is holding the passed unsigned not real bill hostage until the Senate signs off on the reconciliation of a non-existent program.

Lies are easy to understand ...

Article 1 Section 7:

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.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

So as I see it, since the Senate passed the bill first, the taxes contained within are un-Constitutional. Followed by the un-Constitutional procedure of not allowing the bill to be signed by the Pres, but held hostage to insure the Senate acts.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

And so who in the Senate is going to stop this un-Constitutional procedure? And what can we do ... we should not allow this clearly un-Constitutional procedure to take place. We should squawk most loudly against this clear Constitutional violation.

Yes, no ??

"It is only then that reconciliation, budgeting can take place, because they have to reference the programs the budgets will be applied to."

Yeah, that's the part that's not accurate. It is a Parliamentary loophole, so to speak. They can pass legislation to reconcile Bills or perspective bills, and not just laws.

"So in essence, the Speaker is holding the passed unsigned not real bill hostage until the Senate signs off on the reconciliation of a non-existent program."

Again, not exactly. The Speaker (in theory) would hold the passed Reconciliation Bill from the President until the House passes the original Senate bill, which the President - by law - must sign first.

"So as I see it, since the Senate passed the bill first, the taxes contained within are un-Constitutional. Followed by the un-Constitutional procedure of not allowing the bill to be signed by the Pres, but held hostage to insure the Senate acts."

Again, according to Judicial precedent, only the Reconciliation Bills - as it's purely a revenue bill must originate in the Congress. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is "And so who in the Senate is going to stop this un-Constitutional procedure? "

Absolutely no one. However, a sitting Senator (amongst other people and other states) certainly would have standing to sue. Such a suit would be heard on the merits, in my estimation.