The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[86] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their healthcare reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[
Are you daft or purposefully stupid? Your own wiki link gives the following timeline:
Legislative history
1. Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
2. Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
3. Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
4. House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
5. Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
See the bolded part?
HR3590, as originally passed by the House, had nothing whatsoever to do with health care. And look at the votes. Really? All the House Repubs voted for it?
It was a different bill, and has been quoted numerous times the bill was gutted and stuffed with the senate HC bill (i.e., it originated in the Senate). See the next House vote? 219-212.
It was procedural chicanery.
Fern
Everybody knows that this bill originated in the Senate, but it originated by gutting a House bill so technically the House re-voted on a House bill returned (in different form) by the Senate. This is extremely common as the Senate rejects any Constitutional limit on its power, so they gut a House bill and put their own version of an unrelated appropriations bill inside it so that technically it's a House bill. I really think this needs to be stopped, but it's extremely common. Every significant appropriations bill has its Senate version done the same way, so that all that survives from the House version is the bill number.Alright, everybody's getting this backward so I'll repost the info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Please read it people.
Fern
See the bolded part?
HR3590, as originally passed by the House, had nothing whatsoever to do with health care. And look at the votes. Really? All the House Repubs voted for it?
It was a different bill, and has been quoted numerous times the bill was gutted and stuffed with the senate HC bill (i.e., it originated in the Senate). See the next House vote? 219-212.
It was procedural chicanery.
Fern
Everybody knows that this bill originated in the Senate, but it originated by gutting a House bill so technically the House re-voted on a House bill returned (in different form) by the Senate. This is extremely common as the Senate rejects any Constitutional limit on its power, so they gut a House bill and put their own version of an appropriations bill inside it so that technically it's a House bill.
-snip-
Everybody knows that this bill originated in the Senate, but it originated by gutting a House bill so technically the House re-voted on a House bill returned (in different form) by the Senate. This is extremely common as the Senate rejects any Constitutional limit on its power, so they gut a House bill and put their own version of an appropriations bill inside it so that technically it's a House bill. I really think this needs to be stopped, but it's extremely common. Every significant appropriations bill has its Senate version done the same way, so that all that survives from the House version is the bill number.
Again, this is fundamentally dishonest and a blatant rejection of a Constitutional limit and I really think it needs to stop, but there are two reasons I don't want to see SCOTUS hear this case. First, there are four very liberal justices who are never going to divorce the ACA from the unconstitutionality of the method in which it passed; this yields a very good chance that in upholding Obamacare SCOTUS would also approve this practice. Thus we would enshrine this practice and never get back to a more Constitutional form of government. And second, this is an area which needs to be approached very carefully because probably roughly half of our existing appropriations bills are passed in this fashion, the only difference being a reconciliation process and revote that the Dems knew couldn't pass this time around. This could yield chaos if not wisely handled, and the prospects of anything about Obamacare being wisely handled are slim.
This is common?
It is common that the Senate gut a completely unrelated bill and stuff it with something else entirely?
I can see major revisions, but I've never heard of such an utter highjacking.
Fern
Uh, is this illegal? Then why are you questioning it? Oh, because of something you heard on talk radio? Oh gee really?
Annnnnd like I asked before; "Is there any evidence that a bill can't possibly be gutted by the Senate or completely replaced in its entirety (is that even exactly what happened?)?".
And perhaps just as importantly, why has SCOTUS never invalidated a bill due to origination?
Come on Fern, give up the ghost.
Yes, it is done with every major appropriations bill, by both parties. Has been my whole adult life. The Senate rejects the Constitutional limit on their power, so they gut a completely unrelated House bill and use that fiction to get around the Origination Clause. I recall being utterly outraged in the 70s when I first discovered it. I still think it needs to be smacked down, but it's hard to hold on to that teen-aged rage forty years later. Well, unless you're a proggie.This is common?
It is common that the Senate gut a completely unrelated bill and stuff it with something else entirely?
I can see major revisions, but I've never heard of such an utter highjacking.
Fern
If you want to say that the senate is using funny business to get around the requirement that revenue and spending bills originate in the house you are 100% right. Not only will the Supreme Court not intervene in this, but due to the separation of powers it isn't even clear if they could.
No matter what you think about the ACA, the idea that it is invalid due to being a senate bill is based on a fundamental ignorance of us government.
Yes, it is done with every major appropriations bill, by both parties. Has been my whole adult life.
-snip-
I don't think it ignorance at all. The idea that the Senate can just grab any House bill lying around and use it as an empty vehicle to bypass the constitutional requirement of origination strikes me as absurd. It's such an obvious circumvention I have trouble believing that the SCOTUS could uphold. That's saying a quite a bit since in the past few years my opinion of them has seriously declined (e.g., eminent domain and Robert's contortions regarding penalty v tax and I won't get into interstate commerce)
Fern
Very common. The only requirement is that it be an appropriations bill that is politically disposable; I've never seen any effort exerted (by either party) to make it an even marginally related subject.OK, but here's my question - you seem to be saying that Senate guts a House appropriation bill to fill with the senate's appropriation bill. "Appropriation" is the same subject.
In this case, the House bill was on a completely unrelated subject. Is that common?
I think appropriation/appropriation v. home ownership/healthcare is different.
Fern
I just don't think you know how bills have been passed on the US for a very long time.
-snip-
Yeah, I think I do. I tracked tax legislation for a huge international accounting firm. I've watched every iteration of such bills from scratch through conference, never seen such a 'trick'.
Fern
Uhmmmm, clearly you don't as evidenced by this thread. I encourage you to go research this more. Hopefully in the future you will refrain from trying to teach me the legislative history of bills though.
Friends don't let friends listen to right wing talk radio.
To be fair to Fern, here is Professor Randy Barnett's posting on Volokh discussing the issue:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/new-obamacare-challenge-the-origination-clause/
The most pertinent issue is the extent to which the Senate can amend a revenue bill from the House. Prior challenges based upon the Origination Clause have failed mainly because the amendments were still relevant to the overall purpose of the bill as opposed to the scenario created by the ACA "amendments."
Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately choose to hear the case filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation is up in the air but there seems to be a legitimate Constitutional issue posed by the practice of gutting and replacing entire House bills. This extreme use of gutting and replacing a House originated bill whereby the amendments are entirely unrelated to the original bill seems like a huge loophole that will have to be addressed at some point.
Yeap, and SCOTUS has never ruled this to be a problem. Furthermore, this would be a large intrusion of the Supreme Court into the intern workings of congress. It is highly unlikely.
Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, that ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments.
Like I said, we're arguing matters of degrees in the amount of change the Senate imposes on a House bill. With regards to your second point, even Justice Marshall stated in United States v. Munoz-Flores:
Do you not feel there is something wrong with a system that blatantly end runs around a Constitutional provision?
Yeap, and SCOTUS has never ruled this to be a problem. Furthermore, this would be a large intrusion of the Supreme Court into the intern workings of congress. It is highly unlikely.
Well I guess we know where Thomas would come down on it then. Scalia wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole though.
Really though I'm not sure they could even get past an argument about standing. The House in theory was the party victimized by this violation wouldn't it have to sue the Senate? Yet another scenario not likely to happen.
Any person affected by the ACA could sue claiming that the "taxation" is invalid due to the fact that the legislation itself is invalid under the Origination Clause.
Let me know how that turns out for you.......