Posted on 12/15/2010 6:55:46 PM PST by opentalk
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told CNSNews.com that the tax bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday violates the U.S. Constitution.
“Article 1, section 7 says that all revenue bills originate in the House and that is our province and, of course, this originated in the Senate,” she told CNSNews.com in an interview Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the tax deal passed by the Senate on Thursday or Friday. The bill was the result of a deal cut between President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states: “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.”
In a video taped interview, Bachmann told CNSNews.com: “It’s a perfect example of what’s wrong in Washington, which is members of Congress not listening or reflecting [on] the Constitution or the role of the people. That’s why in January I’m starting new classes and seminars on the Constitution for members of Congress.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
That pesky old Constitution. Always causing problems for the Democrats. Well, not really. They just ignore it.
You want to show up on Capitol Hill, with at least a million of your closest friends, all armed to the teeth? That's about what it would take.
Because the country clubbers haven't been stood up against a wall and shot.
Yet.
M Bachman should stream those constitution classes on line for free to anyone who wants to log on... it’s time the American People are made aware of the unconstitutional nature of this administration.
I think this bill also covers food and safety, plus a large land grab.
Two different bills.
The O’care one is the spending bill.
This one is the Tax bill to keep the tax rate the same.
So why hasn’t lawsuits been filed?
The problem is that the bill DID originate in the House as H.R. 4853 (Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 )now Senate Amendment (SA) 4753.
Constitutionally speaking, ‘Are you serious?’ I don’t think Dimocraps care a rats toe about their oath and the US Constitution. Having said that, I’d campaign for Bachman if she ran for President!!
Can the new house jettison all this crap the lame duck bunch is ramming through when they take over? This is the most asinine bunch of crap that this bunch is doing I’ve ever in my life seen. THEY WILL BLAME THE NEW BUNCH OF REPUBLICANS FOR ALL THIS MESS. Already, the big newspapers are doing polls lying about the new bunch and saying they’re pulling this stuff. A lot of people don’t know that it is the same bunch of liberal Nancy Pelosi Democrats that are depositing this BS. Pelosi is laying low, but you may be sure she is behind it. TEA - TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!!! Long live the Tea Party, and may Pelosi’s jet be taken and may she NEVER see it again. Fly commercial, Nancy Fancy Pants!
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201099-1.html Little news story from the other day about how the HOUSE PASSED DEMOCRAT BILL TO EXTEND BUSH MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS. The Senate took this bill and amended it to conform to the agreement with the President. It’s going back to the House as amended.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201099-1.html Here’s the story of its passage in the House. I think Bachmann is confounding “originate” with “germane”. The Senate added things the House didn’t, but that is Constitutional. Even the Founding Fathers did that.
Remember Republicans who brought you to the dance.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson: With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson
It won’t make a difference. They’ll still force it through.Prepare now for 2012...
...because sometimes you have to flush TWICE!
dims: “There’s no controlling legal authority (of which we aren’t in control).”
Thanks; I believe we are on the same page.
My puzzlement came from the note saying "they were wasting ink" on stipulating the enumerated powers as delineated in A1S8. As both Madison and Jefferson wrote, neither envisioned that either the 'general welfare' or 'commerce clause' would step beyond the bounds that A1S8 stipulated.
Not really; how valid laws and regulations, in comportment with those restrictions are instituted by the Federal government, require a method of investigation and vetting for effect. A1S7 is the best way they could come up with to ensure that all parts of the Federal government - Legislature, Administration, and Courts - were given the opportunity to follow all of the rules of the Constitution.
While we have amended, as necessary, through constitutional and lawful means certain portions of the basic Constitution, none of those Amendments changed the basic understanding of either of those two clauses, IMHO.
Sorry if I was obtuse, I was sarcastically referring to the current zeitgeist.
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.