Skip to comments."All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"
Posted on 11/03/2010 11:13:55 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Putting aside whatever crazy Marxist schemes or wild orgies of spending our posterity's future that the Democrats may attempt in an upcoming lame duck session of Congress, remember this:
Beginning in January, neither Barack Obama nor his allies will be able to spend ONE RED CENT without the cooperation of the Republican leadership.
Constitutionally, all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which the GOP now controls by a wide margin.
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."
-- The U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section 7
Tea Partiers, are you paying attention?
The question is, of course, what will they do with that power?
From John Stossel:
"I so want to believe that the tea party marks the beginning of a comeback for small government. But I'm probably deluding myself. I know that big government usually wins. Remember the last time the Republicans took power? They promised fiscal responsibility, and for six of George W. Bush's eight years, his party controlled Congress. What did we have to show for it? Federal spending increased by 54 percent. That's more than any president in the last 50 years."
It’s not the Tea Partiers who need the reminder!
Yup. Let’s hope Boehner rides herd on the Cardinals. If the GOP reverts to its old ways, power will slip again through its fingers.
And never give us another smooth talker like Bush-Crist again!
You’re assuming Obama has been upholding and defending the Constitution for the last 22 months. He hasn’t. While it’s true budgets are set and passed by the House, Obama will ignore them and pass his agenda with Executive Order.
Job #1 for the 112th Congress - spend about 100 trillion fewer red cents in 2011. Stossel is clearly a propaganda spewing partisan.
Aw.. that’s just that irrelevant Constitution thingy what says so.
I make no such assumption. But still, the House controls the purse. They also have the power to impeach.
That restriction should also apply to QE as well. That thing the Federal Reserve and Treasury think they can just do, that creates money from nothing, thereby diluting everyone’s existing dollar.
The House has the power to control those things. The question is “will they?”
Very true ... come January it will be true.
I do shudder to think what this coming Lame Duck session may do as their ‘Last Hurrah’.
Already hear of the Omnibus Bill to set the budget and it is ladened with pork.
Also in the Constitution:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. (Article I, Section 9)
It seems to me that the Progressive congress has made it their ambition to “tax the rich”; that is, penalize them for being rich by raising their taxes dispproportionately.
Sounds suspiciously like a Bill of Attainder or did I misinterpret what I read?
Thanks for any reply.
They're laughing their ASSES off.
Pardon my skepticism, but since when has The Constitution been a hindrance to the usurper?
You can forget about impeachment. Issa won’t even go after the czars.
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
See also, SBC v. FCC.
I definitely agree with that.
I said they have the power. That doesn’t mean I believe they have the will.
Does the House control the monies Michelle uses for her grand adventures? If they do, they need to pull that plug.
IMO, the question on the table is not whether Hussein will follow the Constitution - we know he could care less about it. The question is whether the new Republican majority will do so.
Let 0bama write his decrees; without money, good luck finding the “volunteers” to carry them out.
Congress needs to pass a budget with some serious line item limits on executive spending. First thing on the list is limiting executive spending for travel. No more AF1 for political campaigns. Or overseas vacations.
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.