oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Do you remember how the ACA, (Obamacare) was passed? Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who stated that the House needed to approve the bill so they could find out what was in it? I so well remember her saying just that before every Democrat in the House voted for the law. Having been originated in the Senate the bill was as unconstitutional as any other that has ever been attempted. Chief Justice said in a Supreme Court decision that the "law" was actually a tax law since he found 21, or so, new taxes provided for in it. I will always believe that he set the thing up for another Court case when he said that and I still blame Republicans for not using his decision to blow that thing away. He wrote everything needed to do this when he wrote the majority opinion that left leaning judges wanted to write.

Do you all understand that Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 was obeyed in the recent attempt to get rid of an unconstitutional law? At least it was passed according to what the Constitution orders. Is this a part of Democrat desire to kill that part of the Constitution? They do operate like that and it makes me wonder about them. At least the new law, AHCA, can't be called unconstitutional for the same reason that Obamacare certainly was. I keep wondering when this part of this law will be discussed by the left leaning media, or for that matter, Fox News.

Weaver

If you remember the bill passed that allowed the Bush administration to start the bailing out of the financial crisis in 2007, was voted down by the house. The senate crafted a bill that they passed and sent to the house which was passed. This I thought was unconstitutional since all revenue bills had to originate in the house. I wrote a law teacher who explained that what the senate does is keep a bill on file that they did not vote on. They then pull it out, add what they want to and pass it. This bill originally started in the house but the senate has the power to add to or delete from the bill. That's the reason that I think that every bill needs to stand on it on merit. They need to vote on all bills not keep them in a file for later use at there convince.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

The liberal dodge is that the bill was born in the House.

The reality is that the Senate took a bill from the House. That bill had nothing to do with healthcare. The Senate stripped the bill clean. Wiped it leaving the bill House number only, and inserted the ACA, then sent it to the House as a bill with ammendments. The House then approved it.

I am astonished that no one has challenged the deletion of the original bill and replacing the content with the ACA.

It should be an easy search through the record to pull up the original bill contents because it had to be registered in several ways. I'd like someone to explain why this has never been challenged even though it has been on the web repeatedly.

To my mind, amending a bill is one action but wiping one entirely and totally replacing the content is fraud. As I said, the record should clearly reveal the original contents. If the senate is allowed to retain bills not voted on and change them completely, there would be no reason to ever pass a bill from the House. Just wipe it, change it, and send it. Apparently the House republicans love to be used.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

This is a real example of how the Senate gets involved in writing revenue bills and nobody challenges them. Now lets consider what the House would have done with that one if the Speaker had been a Republican. I am not talking about a RINO like the next Speaker or the present one, but if the Speaker is a Republican then we know that the GOP controls the House.

There is no way that a bill that came out of the House, was filed away for future use by the Senate, and later became the ACA hasn't become unconstitutional when it is used as that one was. However, who goes to the Supreme Court to see what they think about this kind of thing when they know that they can use it later just like the Dem Senate did.

Now Nasty Nancy spoke out to her people saying that they could read it after passing it and I bet few, if any of them, have read much of it yet today.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Doc, I don't think the House GOP loves to be used but they do want this kind of activity to be available to them in the future. Politicians are not so very honest about anything, especially something like this.

I do agree with you about amending and wiping but I seriously do think that politicians know all those little tricks. This is the reason that the elite, too long in office, people can use their experience to crap on us. The establishment people are long time politicians and are not bothered by using tricks like this.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

The behavior you are describing is akin to letting someone shoot you in the head without prosecution so they can shoot your killer later with impunity.

Since an honest.law abiding individual doesn't plan to shoot anyone, there is no need to provide for it. What does it say about all of them? They play their games and you get shot in the head as acceptable collateral damage.

I just don't see being expendable high on my bucket list.