|
Guest
|
|
(16 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 5:22 AM
|
This type of bill must originate in the House.
It will now go to the house.....then back to the Senate.
--
Certainty is not proof
Insistence is not fact
Opinion is not evidence
Arrogance is not credibility
|
|
|
Posts:
215
From:
Cincinnati Ohio
Registered:
5/12/08
|
|
(17 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 6:41 AM
|
I think if I remember right the senate bill was the house bill and they "modified" it.
So I guess "technically" it did oringinate in the house.
--
When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's twenty years behind the times.
Mark twain
|
|
|
Posts:
3,421
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(18 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 8:07 AM
|
I would agree with that. But, the framers of the constitution were overwhelmingly more educated in philosophy and history than our current crop of politicians. Comparing the two sets of people, I am more inclined to believed the word "raise" was carefully chosen by the framers, giving an avenue for the Senate to take some action on taxes, but not beginning the action or raising the tax.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
24,878
Registered:
1/22/05
|
|
(19 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 9:53 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.
The plain langugage says bills to raise revenue. A tax cut is not a bill to raise revenue technically.
The Senate was not elected by the public under the original Constitution. This provision required those who initiate taxation bills to be accountable to the people. Now of course that distinction is moot since Senators are elected as well.
People who are opposed to the bailout are grasping at any straw to try to prevent it. You might as well simply adit that is what you are doing.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,421
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(20 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 10:10 AM
|
In principle, I'm opposed to it. But, it is probably necessary. More to give foriegn investors confidence in us than to bail out the criminals and corrupt politicians who turned a blind eye to the burning of Rome. If there were not a foriegn investment factor, I'd have no qualm about letting Mae and Mac and all the others that jumped on go down with their ship.
I'm reminded of a song, "Evangeline" about a riverboat gambler who goes down with the riverboat on the Mississippi. Should have been that simple.
You know, I like the idea that the body that raises taxes has to face the electorate every 2 years, mid-term especially. But, if it isn't sufficient, in The Constitution is also the method for changing it.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,421
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(21 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 10:15 AM
|
If it "raises" taxes, it has to be more than "technically" originating in the house. It has to pass the house quorum and then go to the Senate. Otherwise, it is in contradiction to The Constitution.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,416
From:
Lake Pend O'reille
Registered:
2/15/04
|
|
(22 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 10:28 AM
|
"But, it is probably necessary. More to give foriegn investors confidence in us..."
I find it very serious how the world financial markets are responding. The last thing we need is a global meltdown.
After the legislation has been affect for a few months the next Congress should take a good hard look at making any necessary adjustments.
Once again we learned that the financial industry has to regulated and watched. They used tax payer backed accounts as collateral for their risky lending practices. We should not allow that to happen again.
I was talking to an ex-coworker at Washington Mutual and he said one of the main reasons that they crashed and burned was that billions had been pouring out of the accounts the week before they were taken over. This tipped the scales on the ratios used to determine liquidity.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,421
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(23 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 11:09 AM
|
That reply probably was put in the wrong place.
It seems to me Obama, Dodd, and Biden were in bed with the primary contributors to this problem. I doubt there will be any remedy if Obama is elected, regardless of how much money is thrown at it. He's one of the reasons it happened. I doubt he'll correct himself, or the interests that own him.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
10/2/08
|
|
(24 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 1:40 PM
|
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
"Raising" means to aquire. It does not referr to the ups and downs of the amount raised.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,416
From:
Lake Pend O'reille
Registered:
2/15/04
|
|
(25 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 5:26 PM
|
"It seems to me Obama, Dodd, and Biden were in bed with the primary contributors to this problem."
I disagree. They did not have the power to strong arm the Republican majority into doing their bidding.
The problem lies with anyone who thinks that the financial industry should not be regulated and monitored. The let the market work things out crowd is mostly on the right, not the left.
Once we allowed banks to use our tax payer backed deposits as collateral, with little to no oversight, then pure old greed went to work. The people who make money from bonuses started coming up with riskier and riskier loans in order to meet their numbers.
You give way too much power to a mere three Senators.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,421
From:
Houston
Registered:
9/5/03
|
|
(26 of 26)
Re: Senate bill, as is, Unconstitutional
Oct 2, 2008 6:16 PM
|
Forgive that I digressed. Frank did a couple of things with regulations that the majority opposed. But, when it was obvious that Mae and Mac were failing, he spoke and said "...things are solid...it's not a good investment today (something about stocks going up and down in general)...It's solid looking forward." I think that's close to the exact quote.
I believe there is bipartisan blame, for sure. But, in this cae, I think it was the application of the lending practices as social programs that was the major contributor.
Suppose, an economic principle is applied. A company will reward what is most beneficial to it. If you look at how much reward was given to who, it becomes obvious that they were rewarding Chairman Dodd and Senator Obama more than any other, by far. Combine this with the quote from Chairman Frank in think in mid July when the Mae and Mac were becoming obviously unable to survive, it forces a conclusion.
Additionally, Mae and Mac were the first to get their money, for all practical purposes to be dispersed at their discretion, it looks to me like that is who was able to skim off the cream of the inevitable bailout coming.
--
You are not what you say, nor are you what you think. You are merely what you have done.
|
|
|
|
|
