|
Posts:
2,519
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(1 of 26)
Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 6:23 PM
|
Simply put, as The Constitution is in it's entirety, "All bills of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives."
Therefore, there can be no taxation authorizations in any bill originating in the Senate.
The tax exemptions attached to this bailout bill make the bill unconstitutional.
My question is, since it is clearly stated in The Constitution that "all bills of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives," why are our Senators putting things in this bill that make it obviously unconstitutional.
If you recall, you hear so many people saying things like "unconstitutional." But, when was the last time you every heard some politician actually quote The Constitution to justify their argument?
And, with the franking privileges that help fill your mailbox with junk mail promoting the sending member of Congress, has anyone ever even heard of a member of Congress sending any constituent a copy of The Constitution?
This is becoming like a panic on a sinking boat. We're ripping up planks from the keel with which to paddle, and both the White House and the Democrats are shouting for us to paddle in opposite directions, both of them wrong.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,795
Registered:
12/11/04
|
|
(2 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 6:29 PM
|
the whole concept is unconstitutional....
Newt was right...Paulson should resign for he, as Treasury Sec....asked for unregulated, unmonitored, unquestionable authority...
a complete breach of the system of checks and balances requested by a sitting Secretary....
We have had enough of 'ex' Goldman Sachs people.....
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
21,140
Registered:
1/22/05
|
|
(3 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 6:43 PM
|
> Simply put, as The Constitution is in it's entirety,
> "All bills of revenue must originate in the House of
> Representatives."
> Therefore, there can be no taxation authorizations in
> any bill originating in the Senate.
> The tax exemptions attached to this bailout bill make
> the bill unconstitutional.
> My question is, since it is clearly stated in The
> Constitution that "all bills of revenue must
> originate in the House of Representatives," why are
> our Senators putting things in this bill that make it
> obviously unconstitutional.
> If you recall, you hear so many people saying things
> like "unconstitutional." But, when was the last time
> you every heard some politician actually quote The
> Constitution to justify their argument?
> And, with the franking privileges that help fill your
> mailbox with junk mail promoting the sending member
> of Congress, has anyone ever even heard of a member
> of Congress sending any constituent a copy of The
> Constitution?
> This is becoming like a panic on a sinking boat.
> We're ripping up planks from the keel with which to
> paddle, and both the White House and the Democrats
> are shouting for us to paddle in opposite directions,
> both of them wrong.
>
> --
> You are not what you say, nor are you what you think.
> You are merely what you have done.
Actually the Constitution states: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate...
This bill is not raising revenue it is lowering it. Tax increases have to originate in the House.
I know Ron Paul said otherwise but he is wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,519
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(4 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 6:45 PM
|
Thanks for the correction. I should have not trusted my memory and pulled my copy out and looked at it one more time.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,519
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(5 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 6:47 PM
|
The Constitution doesn't forbid socialism. That is a choice of the people. Although, I don't think socialism has ever passed a test in the real world.
Anyway, Scipio corrected my assertion. It is unconstitution to "raise" revenue in the Senate.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,124
From:
Lake Pend O'reille
Registered:
2/15/04
|
|
(6 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 7:42 PM
|
"Actually the Constitution states: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate...
This bill is not raising revenue it is lowering it. Tax increases have to originate in the House."
I don't know about the bill but I don't think that is what is meant by 'raising'. I'd be really surprised if the courts didn't say that the meaning is more along the lines of 'collecting'.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,140
Registered:
1/22/05
|
|
(7 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 8:46 PM
|
> "Actually the Constitution states: "All bills for
> raising revenue shall originate...
>
> This bill is not raising revenue it is lowering it.
> Tax increases have to originate in the House."
>
> I don't know about the bill but I don't think that is
> what is meant by 'raising'. I'd be really surprised
> if the courts didn't say that the meaning is more
> along the lines of 'collecting'.
Actually courts have already found ways to exempt even tax increases from the reach of the origination clause. Courts have reasoned that the clause applies to bills passed in order to "raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government". By this notion they found laws that originated in the Senate constitutional whiche levied taxes on banking associations, property taxes in DC and even crime fund taxes as well as appropriation bills which simply allocated money they didn't actually raise taxes.
Given court precedent chances are the courts would be likely to not even entertain the issue. Stevens and Scalia both favor not even hearing such a question. None of the rest are on record but I'm sure at least 3 others could be persuaded not to since the house could simply not pass it if they feel their rights are being violated. But even if they do hear it then their precedent of it only applying to "raising general revenue" seems to foreclose tax cuts as does a plain reading of it.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,974
From:
Hampton Roads, Virginia
Registered:
1/3/03
|
|
(8 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 8:50 PM
|
Both Virginia Senators voted for it.
Warner (R) is retiring - He does not care what we think.
Webb (D) - Does not stand for reelection for 4 more years. The (D) should tell you the rest.
If you want this thing killed lobby your Representatives - HARD. They have to stand for reelection every 2 years and a lot of them are worried about their seats.
--
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - John Adams
2008 - Year of the Jackass
|
|
|
Posts:
9,476
From:
Knoxville, TN
Registered:
3/5/01
|
|
(9 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 8:57 PM
|
All 4 TN senators voted against the first bill. We'll see how this next one does.
--
In loyalty to their kind they cannot tolerate our mind
In loyalty to our kind we cannot tolerate their obstruction
|
|
|
Posts:
14,499
Registered:
2/19/04
|
|
(10 of 26)
hairsplittery is skippy's strong suit, no?
Oct 1, 2008 9:25 PM
|
> Actually the Constitution states: "All bills for
> raising revenue shall originate...
>
> This bill is not raising revenue it is lowering it.
> Tax increases have to originate in the House.
>
this is hairsplittery raised (or is it "sunken"?) to new levels..
> I know Ron Paul said otherwise but he is wrong.
well argued, counselor!!
[applause]
--
FOUR MORE YEARS, FOLKS!?
do you approve of war and deficit spending? vote demopublicrat! otherwise investigate the other parties:
http://www.lp.org
http://www.gp.org
|
|
|
Posts:
10,974
From:
Hampton Roads, Virginia
Registered:
1/3/03
|
|
(11 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 1, 2008 9:36 PM
|
>All 4 TN senators voted against the first bill. We'll see how this next one does.
I think you mean "Representatives?" Each state only has 2 senators. The number of representatives varies with the population of the state.
Both of your senators, Alexander and Corker voted YEA.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html
I am surprised Obama had the guts to vote. Normally I would expect him to avoid voting so that if this thing blows up in their faces he could say "I didn't vote for that." He voted "YEA" too.
--
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - John Adams
2008 - Year of the Jackass
|
|
|
Posts:
767
Registered:
4/6/07
|
|
(12 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 12:05 AM
|
Senate bill passed tonight....
Here is the list...
Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.
Alaska
Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.
Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.
Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) No.
Georgia
Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.
Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) No.
Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.
Iowa
Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Yes.
Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) Yes.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) No; Vitter (R) No.
Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.
Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Not Voting; Kerry (D) Yes.
Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) No.
Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Wicker (R) No.
Missouri
Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.
Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) No.
Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) Yes.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) Yes.
New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.
North Carolina
Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) No.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) No.
Ohio
Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) No.
Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) No.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) Yes.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) No; Thune (R) Yes.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) Yes; Corker (R) Yes.
Texas
Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.
Utah
Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) No.
Virginia
Warner (R) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) Yes.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.
Wisconsin
Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,309
Registered:
8/15/00
|
|
(13 of 26)
Sorry, this bill is raising revenue for the government to spend
Oct 2, 2008 12:33 AM
|
Like government always does with revenue it raises. You thought this money was going to sit in a giant bathtub so Congress and the Treasury could go swimming in it? Lowering revenue would mean there is less money for government to spend. Obviously NOT the case here to everyone but the casual believer of your bogus interpretation. And this is more than an appropriation, this is raising money to then be appropriated in God knows what way.
The reasons for the origination clause were to placate the large states, keeping the purse (the money) closer to the people in a more proportionate, and therefore fairer, manner. This bill flies in the face of the spirit of that clause. You can start wanking about specifics all you want and they're completely irrelevant as always. The Constitution is clear about this, and irregardless of how revenues are raised, the origination clause was violated here (again). Precedence in crapping on the Constitution means nothing to me, because I actually try to follow it, not follow creative people who don't.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,519
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(14 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 4:37 AM
|
"Actually courts have already found ways to exempt even tax increases from the reach of the origination clause. Courts have reasoned that the clause applies to bills passed in order to "raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government". "
The Constitution doesn't specify what the money will be used for. It just demands that all bills for raising money shall originate in the House of Representatives.
This is just another case that demonstrates that our courts are treating The Constitution as a mere suggestion, and not the top-level document is was intended to be.
Analogous to something that is said in the aviation indust, the legal industry operates on the principle that, if you can cram enough pilots into the cockpit you can ignore the instruments. If you cram enough lawyers into a courtroom or Congress, you can ignore The Constitution seems to be what is happening.
I am very troubled about this.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,309
Registered:
8/15/00
|
|
(15 of 26)
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kansas
Oct 2, 2008 4:45 AM
|
|
ROCK!
|
|
|
|
|
