Redstate

With the way they try to torture every comma, and declare with utmost sanctimony that every clause in the Constitution refers to centuries of well-understood grounding in Western thought, that a  thing like making sure all tax increases came from the People's representatives and not those of the States would rise above the level of a "technicality".  

Surely it's at least a "suggestion", or perhaps a "guideline".  I am far too timid to suggest it's a fundamental part of the structure of our government.

They get something out of conference, then vote on it in the House first. If it passes with no amendments, then they vote on the same measure in the Senate. Could they then argue that it in effect originated in the House?

Of course they could truthfully argue that this isn't a measure meant to raise revenue anyway. It appears the true intent is to dole out a few billion in after-the-fact Earned Income Tax Credits.

While I concur with many that the Senate immigration bill is an abomination and I would applaud the use of even the most minor of technicalities to kill it, burn it and scatter its ashes over the cereal in the Senate dining room, I'm not certain that the provision is unconstitutional.  The heart of the question is whether the bill would impose a tax or simply require that existing laws be enforced.

If the bill essentially states that illegal immigrants will be granted amnesty from some violations of laws, but specifically excludes tax laws from those whose violations will be forgiven, then there is no revenue provision involved.  The Senate may simply be saying, "Look, you had an obligation to pay taxes from the moment you had income in this country, and before you get on the path to citizenship, you have to come up with the cash you owe."

On the other hand, if the Senate bill modifies the application of existing tax laws to illegal immigrants in any way, then it is a revenue bill and it is unconstitutional.  The original provision that would have allowed illegals to get clear by paying back taxes on just three of the past five years would seem to be of this type.

What else is new.

is the suggestion from Frist:

Republicans -- including the bill's supporters -- say this will kill the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he's offered a simple solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has already passed the House.

This would allow the Senate to begin originating spending legislation and then attach it to unrelated House spending bills. I think that clearly violates the spirit of the Constitution.

The Senate can originate Spending bills until it's blue in the face.  The prohibition is on it originating revenue bills.

Article I, Section 7 states that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

That goes beyond simple tax bills - that's all efforts to raise money - tariffs, excises, fees, etc.  I would say that the "fine" being imposed in the amnesty deal is simply a fee by which an illegal immigrant turns himself into a legal immigrant.  It is, thus, a revenue provision just as much as if they had written a bill to increase the fee to get a passport.  The Senate simply can't do it.  They can only raise revenue through House bills - by taking them and amending them.  Here the House immigration bill has no provisions for an amnesty so there are no "revenue raising" provisions in the bill for the Senate to amend.

This strikes me as a pretty valid, and more than technical, point while wearing my lawyer cap.  In the practical world however, the reasoning behind the provision seems to have been vitiated by the 17th Amendment.  Since the people directly elect Senators as well as Representatives now, there doesn't seem to be the same justification for the limitation (there may be other reasons the Senate shouldn't be trusted, but those reasons were not the ones contemplated by the Founders).

A Senator represents the State in which he is elected, for his 6-year term.  The position was designed to be somewhat insulated from the popular will.  It is that insulation which is the reason for the Senate's inability to introduce tax increases.

The House is (supposed to be) more responsive to the People, and the Senate to the States.  Senators hobnob with Governors and other statewide officials to get elected, while Congressmen are more likely to be involved with locals.

I was pointing out that there is a counter-argument to the idea that it should still be the rule.

And once again I point out, the provision applies to all revenue bills and not just tax measures.  The Senate could not originate a bill that would raise fees paid by companies registering securities any more than it could originate a bill increasing marginal tax rates.  They both raise revenue, they both are subject to the restrcting clause.

abusing power. We should instead be very concerned about the Legislative branch, which in both Houses has decided to ignore the Constitution and assert new powers.

Things are very much out of balance right now, and the parties are failing to hold true to principals and loyalty to the Constitution.

I could swear the budget bill passed last year or the year before had different versions of the bill pass in each house of Congress after it came out of committee and then the President signed it, but no one realized the versions were different until afterwards.  I don't have time to find it now, anyone else know of the top of your heads?

I know our only recourse is to vote these guys out but I daydream that since the Constitution is basically the core law of the land, and these guys are breaking the law every day, couldnt we just call a cop?

:-)

I misspoke, but the concern is the same, the Senate trying to circumvent the Constitution by trying to piggyback a revenue generating Bill on the tailcoats of House revenue generating leg.

As far the 17th Amend. goes, if you argue that changes how things are done in Congress, then perhaps treaties should also require ratification by the House.

Since they are often eager to violate the actual written word, I wouldn't expect them to give even a passing glance to spirit.  

This provision is in the Constitution as a direct result of the Great Compromise that allowed the Constitution to come into being.

Simply put, the large states wanted Congressional representation to follow population, while the small states wanted it to follow states -- one state, one vote.  By having the lower house follow population, and by sweetening the deal with the requirement that all revenue bills must originate from the House, the large states yielded to the small states and went with the disportionate representation of the Senate.

In practice, the provision means about as much as a kiss from your sister, but it is still the law of the land.  It astonishes me to see Sen. Reid making the argument that the Constitution doesn't matter.  This is almost as bad as Hastert claiming immunity from criminal investigations.

I thought these guys were supposed to be smart?

the rats out of office.

Not the provision that you have to pay your backtaxes.

violation, although that argument could be made to a lessert extent about the three-year back tax payment (as if that would happen, anyway). Whatever, Neil has it right--let the Senate save face and claim this turkey had to be killed because of a sudden interest in our precious Constitution. Heck, we won't even have to get into how the three-year limitation on back tax payments probably violates the Equal Protection clause if that works.

would also render the Senate's version of this legislation unconstitutional.

Not being an attorney myself, my Con Law expertise is somewhat limited, but on it's face, this legislation looks like a form of reverse discrimination and openly violates the Equal Protection Clause.

By granting extra-constitutional rights, waivers and privileges to illegal-aliens that are not avialable to legal immigrants, other minorities and current US citizens, this legislation must be ruled as unconstitutional, unless the same rights, waivers and privileges are extended to all US persons.

Even if the Bill is unconstitutional, who could bring suit?  Not you or me.  We'd have no standing.  You can't just bring a suit because you think law is unconstitutional.  First, the gov't would have to apply the unconstitutional law to you.  

Here, the law would be applied solely against illegals.  They'd pay their fee, or whatever, and then become citizens--never suing.  Only a fool would actually bring suit here after enjoying the advantages offered by the law.

The point is that a House member might use this justification to keep this plan from ever reaching the house floor.

I don't see why that won't work.

A house member would have standing to sue.

that bills with revenue features ended up being passed first by the Senate.  One year in the '90s the whole budget bill came from the Senate first.

While I hate to be seen as agreeing with Harry Reid on anything, he is pretty well correct here.  The conference committee will strike the more egregious aspects of the Senate bill, which will make it, in effect and fact, a new bill.  The House will then vote on it first.  

Try taking that case to SCOTUS if you want to.  Don't expect many donations to the legal fund, though.

The small vs big for the way numbers are determined yes, but I'm not sure about the spending part.

Since the Senators were there to represent the States while the Representatives were to represent the people, and one of the rallying cries of the War of Indepenance was "No Taxation without Representation," there is a strong argument that the decision to make revenue bills originate in the House is independant of the Grand Compromise. All of which plays into the lawyerly debate below about whether the 17th amendment might moot the cause for the constitutional clause.

This was a matter of considerable debate.  They returned to the topic again and again.  It was like a itch that demanded scratching.

Its genesis arose from the debate considering representation.  It was argued several times that the money of the large states was at risk from the small states if the states had equal representation.  Here is just one citation from June 30 by Dr. Franklin:

The diversity of opinions turns on two points. If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger.

The first time the actual idea of limiting the origination of money bills to the lower house appears is in the report of the Compromise Committee that met over the Fourth of July.  This is their report (emphasis added):

That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote.

More than a month later, they were still discussing the topic as shone in the following August 13 speech by Madison:

As to the Compromise of which so much had been said, he would make a single observation. There were 5 States which had opposed the equality of votes in the Senate, viz. Masts. Penna. Virga. N. Carolina & S. Carola. As a compensation for the sacrifice extorted from them on this head, the exclusive origination of money bills in the other House had been tendered.

The exclusive right of the House to originate money bills was part and parcel of the Grand Compromise allowing different representation schemes for the two houses of Congress.  It can even be argued that if that right had not been secured to the lower house, we may not have gotten a Constitution in the form we enjoy today.  

rather than the bill itself being unconstitutional?

That little tactic, in light of the gamesmenship on even terming criminal fines for illegals coming forward for the Senate version's citizenship program as "revenue raising", will go nowhere.  That would make every criminal justice bill passed by the U.S. Congress unconstitutional.  The portion of the Senate bill dealing with the earned income credit is easily overcome, since all that is said is that illegals who come forward (for guest worker or track to citizenship), are not eligible to collect the earned income credit due to being in violation of the law---does nothing about raising revenue and since they are subject to this ineligibility is part of their criminal penalties for being here illegally, it escapes any 14th Amendment equal protection claim.

Finally, yes, any law student would say that when proposed bills on a subject are brought into conference committee and the egregious elements are brought out (Social security and others in the Senate bill, the felony designation provision in the House), then the final bill IS a new bill, and by letting the House vote first, then the Article I requirement is satisfied.  Game, set, match.

Yo saludo por a la bandera, de los Estados Unidos de America. Y a la republica quiere levantese, un nacion para Dios, indivisible, con libertad y justicia para todos.

My previous post referred to "egregious parts" of the Senate bill "Social Security and others".  For clarification, I meant the provision allowing illegals to collect Social Security for work done while here illegally. An amendment to stop that was narrowly defeated in the Senate, that amendment must be added in final conference (take that, Mr. Kennedy!).  I also would demand that Senator McConnell's requirement that all voters present valid ID proof of citizenship before voting should be added to the bill (time to stop the insanity of people like what happened to Bob Dornan and what Francine Busby is trying to do in the 50th District election next Tuesday).

AND I WANT THAT FENCE!  From San Diego to Brownsville!

While I support some kind of earned citizenship, I would limit it to people here 5 years or more, and would raise the fines, eliminate federal funding from any city or state who declares itself a "sanctuary city", enforce the law requiring local law enforcement notify immigration authorities on any illegals found in their custody, and provide grants and benefits for any institution that provides English and citizenship training for immigrants (talk about your faith-based program opportunity!).

End "catch and release", and raising the number of immigration officers to 25,000 is not enough, not with the threats we have, and the burden to CIS, ICE, etc. that will increase with any new law.  50,000 minimum, and 12,000, not 6K, of National Guard while the new agents are trained---Posse Comitatus be damned!  We have a nation to protect, which I understand to be our military's first duty.

Aslan lives forever!