The Government
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Yeah, and read on. The Senate can propose or concur with amendments on other bills.
The way it works is both the Senate and the House draft their own versions of the bill, and then Senate adopts the House version of the bill, not the other way around.
The Senate is allowed to bring up the idea, then both the House and Senate draft it, and if it makes it through the House, the Senate adopts their wording.
Appropriation bills begin with H.R., because they originate in the House.
Last edited:
Then I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.
Do you know of any bills that were originally passed in the Senate and then passed to the House?
Anyone is allowed to draft a bill, but they can only be introduced by a House Rep. My understanding is that Senate can draft bills all they want. The House then amends the bill and puts it to vote. That is completely constitutional.
Apparently I'm missing something ei...bills that were voted on first in the senate and then passed to house, or skipped the house all together. If you can provide some examples, it would be appreciated.
Anyone can write a bill/legislation. House has to bring it to a vote first, and is allowed to amend the bill.
Can you explain to me what you mean by originate? Originate as in draft the bill? Or what
Do you understand how the bailout passed? House vetoed the first bill. Senate then amended HR 1424 (I think) to avoid article 1 section 7, and it passed in the senate. Senate amended a bill already passed by the House. The house then got to review the bill, with the senate amendments, and the House voted it through. Perfectly constitutional.
Senate didn't pass it first. The House passed the bill first, Senate amended it, House voted through the amendments.
It has nothing to do with the Senate passing it "first" or not, it has everything to do with the fact that it was written in the Senate.
Furthermore, your posts so far have been irritating, for the lack of sourcing.
I have a hard time believing these are all your original words.
So I would appreciate seeing where they came from, simply for the purposes of debate.
Anyone can write a bill. This is a common known fact. It's all over google and I can give you a plethora of links for it if you so like.
Here's the wikipedia page about HR 1424 (also known as Public Law 110-343)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_110-343
What other sources would you like? I'll gladly find sources for my "irritating" statements.
It was amended in the Senate. There is a difference between "originally written" and "amended".
I didn't find your statements inherently irritating, just the fact that you googled/wiki'd said topic, and then presented it as original opinion.
I'm somewhat guilty of the same thing, in a different context, so I'd be more than happy to present my source, as it were, for the topic on hand.
[youtube]WL-9CV-qbMw[/youtube]
0:34
I don't know what you mean that I presented these ideas as 'original opinion'. I told you my knowledge about the bill, and then gave you a wikipedia reference that supported my knowledge. I don't know what you're trying to insinuate.
Regardless, the way it was passed was completely constitutional. The video is wrong in saying that the senate can't write a portion of a bill. A senator can write a bill and give it to a rep in the house. To originate means that it can only appear in the House first, meaning a Rep has to bring it to vote. That doesn't mean that the senate can't write a bill about taxes, but it can't originate (as in vote through) in Senate.
Even so, that isn't how this bill passed. It passed House first, Senate amended (still completely constitutional), and then House voted on the amendments.
The guy in the video is either a) lying to influence people, or b) doesn't know what he's talking about.
He said it was unconstitutional, when in fact it wasn't. That isn't subject, it's what happened. I think it's reasonable to conclude that he either lied, or doesn't understand. I don't really see any other way around it. If there is one, feel free to enlighten me.
As I understand it, the fact that ANY piece of legislation can be taken which was previously passed by the house, even if it had nothing to do with appropriation, and then have the tax relation legislation "amended" later by the Senate, is the controversial practice in question.
This is what was done with the bailout, as your own source says.
"In practice, the Senate can simply circumvent this requirement by substituting the text of any bill previously passed by the House with the text of a revenue bill, as was done with H.R. 1424[54][55] or the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982."
If it isn't against the letter of the law, it's against the spirit.
Which is the point.
Well sure, it's controversial, but it's a completely legal practice and doesn't defy the constitution; it's not unconstitutional.
It says in the constitution in article 1, section seven, that the Senate can amend bills passed by the House. They did just that. The House then has to re-vote on the bill before it's taken into effect. The House did just that. Completely constitutional.
People are free not to like the way it's done, but saying it is unconstitutional is a lie or misunderstanding of the constitution.
Your original arguement was that the Congress passed this unconstitutionally. It was constitutional. You're free not to like the way it's done, but it was completely constitutional.
It would seem that it's as "unconstitutional" as the viewing party wants to see it as...
Come on, seriously...
They can take legislation that has NOTHING to do with appropriation, and the Senate can then write completely new material for said bill dealing with taxes.
That doesn't at all, to you, seem to violate the concept of "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."?
I think most sane people would agree an "amendment" would require the material to already be there, in some capacity.
Come on, seriously...
They can take legislation that has NOTHING to do with appropriation, and the Senate can then write completely new material for said bill dealing with taxes.
That doesn't at all, to you, seem to violate the concept of "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."?
I think most sane people would agree an "amendment" would require the material to already be there, in some capacity.
Last edited:
I'm not going to convince you, and see little more value to this discussion.
Yeah, it seems sneaky, but guess what, the very same line you quote says that the Senate can amend bills. It doesn't say that Senate isn't allowed to write amendments that include taxes. It's not like the Senate amends it and then passes it. The amendments then go back to the House. If the House doesn't agree, they veto. Both versions of the bill have to be identical in the House and the Senate.
I understand that you don't like the way it's done, but sorry to tell you that it's legal. Being legal doesn't mean it's necessarily right, but it sure as hell is within the bounds of the constitution.
*Edit to your edit:
Yeah, it seems sneaky, but guess what, the very same line you quote says that the Senate can amend bills. It doesn't say that Senate isn't allowed to write amendments that include taxes. It's not like the Senate amends it and then passes it. The amendments then go back to the House. If the House doesn't agree, they veto. Both versions of the bill have to be identical in the House and the Senate.
I understand that you don't like the way it's done, but sorry to tell you that it's legal. Being legal doesn't mean it's necessarily right, but it sure as hell is within the bounds of the constitution.
*Edit to your edit:
You can think what you want, but you're venturing further and further from facts, and into speculation.
Last edited: