“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.
6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not have the power to originate such a bill.
7 The bill was considered and carried to a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,
8 the bill of the House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had originally been reported on December 27,
9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr. Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number
10 This bill passed the Senate and became a law.
11” ... from Hind’s Precedents Chapter XLVII pg 943
With deepest apologies for modifying your post for the sake of readability.
Thank you much for your excellent post!
Thank you, bear in mind that by 1833 the Founders were no longer running things and Henry Clay was a bit of a trickster and does not have their ‘authority’ on constitutional construction.
Logically allowing an “amendment in the nature of a substitute” by the Senate obviates the origination clause, and the House’s prerogative is not equivalent to an amendment to the constitution .
It’s the long standing practise of the body that ‘rules’ our courts though so it would take great intrepidity to strike it down.