Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has a been a bit of talk about Article 1 Section 7 requiring an up or down vote on bills, including the current health care bill.
However, the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 7 states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. The current health care bill originated in the Senate and contains all kinds of fees, taxes and fines - all sources of revenue. Doesn't that make the current Senate bill un-Constitutional?
There has a been a bit of talk about Article 1 Section 7 requiring an up or down vote on bills, including the current health care bill.
However, the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 7 states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. The current health care bill originated in the Senate and contains all kinds of fees, taxes and fines - all sources of revenue. Doesn't that make the current Senate bill un-Constitutional?
If the senate bill was a responce to one started in the house the it is OK. If it is not then it isn't OK.
there has a been a bit of talk about article 1 section 7 requiring an up or down vote on bills, including the current health care bill.
However, the first paragraph of article 1 section 7 states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the house. The current health care bill originated in the senate and contains all kinds of fees, taxes and fines - all sources of revenue. Doesn't that make the current senate bill un-constitutional?
HR 3590 originated in the House as the service members something or other benefits revenue something. It went to the Senate where the name and text were replaced by that old guy from LasVegas... Johnny Cash or Marilyn Monroe's grandfather or whatever. It was then sent back to the House for reconciliation, tomorrow.
It's Congressional abuse of Constitutional privilege. Things need to change.
Quote:
H.R. 3590
Note: The bill is the Senate vehicle for health care reform legislation.
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED by the House:
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
OFFICIAL TITLE AS AMENDED by the Senate:
An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
There has a been a bit of talk about Article 1 Section 7 requiring an up or down vote on bills, including the current health care bill.
However, the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 7 states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. The current health care bill originated in the Senate and contains all kinds of fees, taxes and fines - all sources of revenue. Doesn't that make the current Senate bill un-Constitutional?
No. The House can take up legislation from the Senate.
However, the way they are voting on this - reconcilation first on a bill that has not passed the house, seems problematic.
I thought the Senate parliamentarian had ruled the house had to pass the senate bill into law before taking up reconciliation.
I look at it this way, if the democrats actually pass this bill without actually doing a vote of all members. then I dont want to hear a damn word from the democrats if the same tactic is used by the republicans to pass a bill such as no sex between same sexes, no welfare for more than 1 year, you have to carry a firearm anytime you are outside a home, and my favorite, no federal unions, no teacher unions and no voting unless you are not an actually owner of a home or proerty.
passing this bill without an actual vote means that the constitution shall not matter at all, and there would no longer be any need of having any representitives or senators.
HR 3590 originated in the House as the service members something or other benefits revenue something. It went to the Senate where the name and text were replaced by that old guy from LasVegas... Johnny Cash or Marilyn Monroe's grandfather or whatever. It was then sent back to the House for reconciliation, tomorrow.
It's Congressional abuse of Constitutional privilege. Things need to change.
I think you are on to something about the way the bill worked through the process. I say that because we are represented by a Blue Dog Democrat, Walt Minnick, who has always said he will vote no but he was a co-sponsor of the bill number that the Senate is using. Our congressman has appeared on some Blue Dog target list as a result of that.
It is entirely outside of the original intent of Article 1 Section 7 but I didn't start the thread to argue the bill, per se. I was just wondering if there was some convoluted logic that the House was using... and there is!
I think you are on to something about the way the bill worked through the process. I say that because we are represented by a Blue Dog Democrat, Walt Minnick, who has always said he will vote no but he was a co-sponsor of the bill number that the Senate is using. Our congressman has appeared on some Blue Dog target list as a result of that.
It is entirely outside of the original intent of Article 1 Section 7 but I didn't start the thread to argue the bill, per se. I was just wondering if there was some convoluted logic that the House was using... and there is!
Thanks for the response.
Yes, things need to change!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I got the heads up from Red State
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took an existing HOUSE-passed bill, H.R.3950–the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009–and here’s how it unfolded:
Quote:
10/8/2009:
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
10/13/2009: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 175.
11/19/2009: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S11578)
11/19/2009: Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the bill presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S11578; text: CR S11578)
11/20/2009: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S11826-11879, S11888-11903)
11/21/2009: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S11907-11967)
11/21/2009: Cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. Record Vote Number: 353. (consideration: CR S11967; text: CR S11967)
11/21/2009: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
11/21/2009: Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S11967)
11/21/2009: S.AMDT.2786 Amendment SA 2786 proposed by Senator Reid. (consideration: CR S11967)
Harry Reid switched the language in H.R. 3590 and replaced it with the Senate’s version of the health care system takeover in order to satisfy the requirement for all legislation raising taxes to originate in the House.
Reid is a POS.
Took a while for me to get a grip on the process. There's more at the link.
I look at it this way, if the democrats actually pass this bill without actually doing a vote of all members. then I dont want to hear a damn word from the democrats if the same tactic is used by the republicans to pass a bill such as no sex between same sexes.
I think the Supreme Court might have a problem with that one, since they just struck down all sodomy laws in 2003 and essentially said that we all have a right to privacy in our homes.
But it's interesting that you made that point. It sounds like you want to see same-sex relationships outlawed. I wouldn't be surprised (unfortunately) if a majority of Republicans agreed with you.
I think the Supreme Court might have a problem with that one, since they just struck down all sodomy laws in 2003 and essentially said that we all have a right to privacy in our homes.
But it's interesting that you made that point. It sounds like you want to see same-sex relationships outlawed. I wouldn't be surprised (unfortunately) if a majority of Republicans agreed with you.
I personally dont care if you have sex with anyone else, that is your choice, i dont believe in the feds being able to legislate a persons sexual life. but on the same hand, i dont believe in the feds ability of telling me I have to have insurance or a type of insurance, or to pay for joe blows health insurance either.
the point I was making, if this does come to pass without a complete vote, then i dont want to hear word 1 from any democrat if the republicans or some other party decides to pass legislation without going through a full vote from both houses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
