1
Indeed.

2 Bicameralism is good and proper, but never forget why we are called the "Upper House" ...

3 Sorry, no.  In this case, li'l bro is going to break big brother's nice shiny toy with lots of amendments (in crayon, no doubt) and then once again big brother will demonstrate how clumsy he is.

4 Not bad, but I'd prefer this bill be defeated, so the people of America can ask the House and Senate: "How do you like us now?"

5
The Barons of the Senate are not to be trifled with.

6 Best little piece I've read all day (and I've been reading ALL DAY!).

7
Anyone remember the sick feeling they had when it came down to one of 3 senators to be the next president?

Since early 2008 we knew that either McCain, Clinton, or Obama would be Bush's successor. A senator. A supreme douche bag. An individual so out-of-touch, so arrogant, so ignorant, they would be counted upon to do only the wrong thing, make the worst choice for the country.

8 I think you meant "fetch your shine box."

9

wrong stuiec.  the House can either vote yes or no on the Senate bill.  if they vote no, we relax for awhile.  if they vote Yes, the bill goes to Bambi where he will sign it into law.

just what part of the SEnate not wanting to dive in these shark infested waters do you not understand?  there may be a whole pile of "fixes" sent over to the Senate.  the senate has not acted on about 80% of what the House has already sent them this term so why would they get excited now?

the Senate passed this bill from the get go.  they do. not. want. to. get. involved. with. this. nat'l. outrage. again.

10 fuck that bitch in my tv.

11 you notice that the Dem Senators have been strangely quiet this week--that is because they do not want to touch this hot potato again EVAH.  meanwhile, the Republican Senators keep saying (with bravado) "bring it" & we'll name names & we'll shred it & we'll filibuster it.

12 Jack M. is king of the awesome goofy shit on this blog.

13 In fact, were it not for how precious your antics are, we might not even keep you around at all! Sure...revenue bills have to originate within your body,

But they can get around that by simply amending an already passed House bill that has no revenue in it.

Like the Dec health care bill they want the House to pass now. .

14 Okay, Jack M. Your a regular Noel Coward. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS ALL MEAN?!

15 What are the chances Nancy has the votes to just pass the Senate bill?

16 Now go home and get your fuckin' juice box!

17 Did the bill originate from the House? If it didn't, they can't vote on it.

18

So Obama is heading to the hill now. Either they are going to pass it today or he is going over to try to get the house to pass the senate bill and assure them that the senate will be "held responsible" to make the house amendments part of it.

 

Or some other big LIE

 

19 Article I Sec 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

20 Just read on Twitter:  Tea Party protesters refused entry into congressional buildings | Washington Examiner: http://bit.ly/bcjMEg

21
I haz noo theory.

I think what is happening is Peelosi is getting tentative Yes's. In other words, a lot of the Maybe's are saying okay I'll vote for it IF YOU  ABSOLUTELY NEED ME.

None of the Maybe's will really commit to being Yes's until the others jump in. So that's why the Democrats DO kinda have the votes, but won't take a vote.

22 Freaking awesome, Jack M.! 

The Wicked Witch has to pass the Senate POS.  That's some strong leadership, there, Nancy.

23 OT:Dem rep gets called on the floor [by an R rep] for bribery. [re-post]
Love it. It's the NASA guy. He won't stop talking about his so-called integrity & the chair keeps telling him to stop talking.

24 hey, not that i want to change the subject or minimize or such, but anybody want to see something weird? go to the nytimes web page. there's a photo of michelle bachmann (r-minn) at an anti-health care bill rally. boy does she have small hands! check it out, she's shaking a protestor's hand & her hand is just tiny! wild stuff. ok, back to your regularly scheduled blog.

25

@19: The line is that it's "Revenue Neutral" so it can originate in the Senate.

Everyone that's ever balanced a checkbook knows different, but no one wants to address the elephant in the room.

26 Also, kudos to Paul Ryan for his 30min debate with the House Rules Committe today. 2 best clips:
http://tinyurl.com/yd32uec
http://tinyurl.com/yc6eabl

Do the Dems even know what's in this bill? They seem to care more about just passing something than what's in this thing. Now, they have to subject their plan to a Senate vote. Orrin Hatch, of all people, said that "it's nuts" for the Dems to try to foist this on the Senate. What's the endgame between Nan & Reid here?

27 bork bork bork

28 Do the Dems even know what's in this bill? They seem to care more about just passing something than what's in this thing.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby

No, they don't know!  Have you heard their new talking point? "This isn't a vote on the specific bill, it's a vote on whether there should be reform or no reform."  They know this bill fucking sucks, and are trying to change the idea of what the vote is on.

29 The line is that it's "Revenue Neutral" so it can originate in the Senate.

Not true, it raises taxes so it must originate in the House.  They got around that by amending an already passed House bill to add the health scam mess.

What the House will be voting on technically is a "re-vote" on the amended bill.  

Personally this is a transparent dodge to get around the Constitution which would not last 5 seconds in a real Supreme Court that didn't have 4 jackasses and a donkey on it.   

30 Excuse me: the bill fucking sucks, or no one knows what's in it, so they're saying a vote for the bill is just simply a vote for wanting some kind of reform.

31 @30 - You're right - I had forgotten about them gutting the existing bill.  My bad

32 Look, I've gotten lost on all the revisions of this one and that one. What they'll be voting on is the POS that they were granted 72 hours to review and evaluate, correct? So, even if approved and signed by the child in the Oval Office, nothing changes as to the Constitutional challenges that will have to be addressed by the judiciary. Therefore, unless the House voted the Senate bill down, we live to fight another day.

33

wrong stuiec.  the House can either vote yes or no on the Senate bill.  if they vote no, we relax for awhile.  if they vote Yes, the bill goes to Bambi where he will sign it into law.

Posted by: kelley in virginia at March 20, 2010 03:42 PM (Oan2w)

The House can also introduce amendments to the Senate bill before voting on it and sending it back to the Senate.  If the House amends it, then one of four outcomes will happen:

1) The Senate votes on it exactly as returned by the House - but subject to regular rules of debate, including the filibuster.

2) The Senate amends it (again, under risk of filibuster) and sends it to the House again.

3) The bill goes to a conference committee for negotiation of a conference report, which then has to be passed -- unamended and under filibuster rules -- by both the House and Senate.

4) The Senate abandons the battle.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama will never, NEVER abandon the battle until they are carried off the field on their shields.

Reid will not put the bill to another vote if there's a risk of it being killed with amendments on the Senate floor.

So a conference committee is his only hope, slim as it is.

34 30 Okay, so that's how they made it work.

35 It all sounds good, except for the pesky problem of having SNL's worst ever writer occupying one of those precious 100 seats.  A bigger clown is hard to find,  Tinfoil-hat Kuccinnich included.

36 29 No, they don't know!  Have you heard their new talking point? "This isn't a vote on the specific bill, it's a vote on whether there should be reform or no reform."  They know this bill fucking sucks, and are trying to change the idea of what the vote is on.

How wonderful. Let's just pass something, because we have to or people will die. It doesn't kick in for a few years! It's not like people are going to start dropping dead if this thing doesn't pass. [Though they will if or once it is.] Bunch of f'ing commies.

37 Article I Sec 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 20, 2010 03:50 PM (J46Fi)

The rest of Article I section 7 that you've left out says "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

Which is why what we call "the Senate bill" is actually a bill that started in the House that the Senate added its whole bill to as an amendment in the nature of a substitute.  It was a House bill that was already in the Senate's possession that they regarded as a convenient vehicle.  This is not unconstitutional since, as I just noted, the Constitution expressly provides for it.

38 34 The House is voting on 105 amendments before they vote on passing the Senate bill. Here's a partial list. Oh, & Dem before the HRC just said that they're "making up the rules as they go along". What does he think this is, an Indiana Jones movie?

39 If Nansty has the votes for the senate bill, then it will go directly to the president for signing.  Do not pass go....blah,blah,blah.  Remember what they've been saying all along.  They just need their foot in the door.

40 Personally this is a transparent dodge to get around the Constitution which would not last 5 seconds in a real Supreme Court that didn't have 4 jackasses and a donkey on it.

See above.  The same constitutional provision that requires revenue bills to originate in the House expressly allows the Senate to amend those bills just like any other bills.

41 "3) The bill goes to a conference committee for negotiation of a conference report, which then has to be passed -- unamended and under filibuster rules -- by both the House and Senate."

Keep in mind that a vote to appoint conferees is itself subject to a filibuster, so the Senate may not even be able to join in convening a conference on this thing.

42 38 But the House wants their bill to be the final, so why didn't they just pass it out of the House? Is it easier to just take the Senate bill & amend it that way? Though wouldn't the Senate have to take another vote affirming the changes?

So many rules, too many ways to get around them. It's getting confusing what is & isn't allowed anymore.

43 But now Ann Althouse is saying this:

But the Senate bill will have been passed, and it will go to the President for signature. That may be all they ever do pass, in which case the amendments are not worth a damn. The problem raised in the post is really just another way of saying that the House needs to face up to the reality that it will be passing the Senate bill, unamended, and that will be signed by the President.

44

See above.  The same constitutional provision that requires revenue bills to originate in the House expressly allows the Senate to amend those bills just like any other bills.

 

But doesn't the bill have to have identical language coming from both houses before the president can sign it?

45 "...the House wants their bill to be the final, so why didn't they just pass it out of the House?"

They did.  When they did, the House bill was sent to the Senate, and there it stays, waiting in the Senate's possession, until the Senate either does something with it or it dies at the end of the current Congress in January 2011.  The Senate could take up the House bill at any time: now that the R's have enough votes to filibuster it, and any amendments to it, they won't.

46

Bring it, you Dem fools. This summer is going to be so much fun. We are going ream you with lawsuits, tax revolt, insurance revolt and vote your asses out of office this fall.

47

But the Senate bill will have been passed, and it will go to the President for signature. That may be all they ever do pass, in which case the amendments are not worth a damn. The problem raised in the post is really just another way of saying that the House needs to face up to the reality that it will be passing the Senate bill, unamended, and that will be signed by the President.

Maybe that why the president has rushed over to the capital building, so if they pass the senate bill, he can sign right there, and then they immediately vote on the amendments and he signs those.

48 The same constitutional provision that requires revenue bills to originate in the House expressly allows the Senate to amend those bills just like any other bills.

"But doesn't the bill have to have identical language coming from both houses before the president can sign it?"

Yes: hence the ping-pong between the chambers.  What we're calling "the Senate bill" originated as an unrelated bill that was passed by the House and sent to the Senate.  The Senate amended it and sent it back to the House, with the usual message asking for the other chamber to concur in the amendments or appoint conferees.  If the House passes it without amendments, it will have passed both chambers in identical form and will be an "enrolled bill" that can be sent to the President: if the House amends it and then passes it, it goes back to the Senate again.

49 This is not unconstitutional since, as I just noted, the Constitution expressly provides for it.

That was intended to be for amending a House bill on revenue.  If they intended for what they are doing to be legal there would have been no need for the requirement to begin with and the entire paragraph becomes "useless".

The only "useless" paragraph in the Constitution is the preamble and that was not written by the whole convention or voted on by them. It was added after the fact by the committee on style.

50 46 They did.  When they did, the House bill was sent to the Senate, and there it stays, waiting in the Senate's possession, until the Senate either does something with it or it dies at the end of the current Congress in January 2011.  The Senate could take up the House bill at any time: now that the R's have enough votes to filibuster it, and any amendments to it, they won't.

The Maine sisters will prevent the filibuster, you mean? Or they don't have the guts to filibuster?

51 who wrote that? Senator Franken?

52 Looks like Intrade will give ObamaCare a 90% chance of passing it is now at 88%

53

But doesn't the bill have to have identical language coming from both houses before the president can sign it?

Posted by: Iamnotanalcoholic at March 20, 2010 04:24 PM (5rFsg)

YES.

The only way for the Dems to pass this thing without risking a filibuster by the 41 Senate Republicans is for House to pass the existing Senate bill unamended.

And if the House doesn't want to vote for the Senate's bill unamended, it will have to amend it, now that Pelosi has abandoned the fiction of Demon Pass.

And if the House amends the bill, then it goes back to the Senate under the regular rules of debate, including the filibuster.

54 The Senate could take up the House bill at any time: now that the R's have enough votes to filibuster it, and any amendments to it, they won't.

"The Maine sisters will prevent the filibuster, you mean? Or they don't have the guts to filibuster?"

No, I mean if the Senate took up the House bill, which they presently have in their possession, the Republicans would have the 41 votes they need to filibuster it.  Which is why it will never come to the Senate floor in the first place, and why it's the House that's having to go first.

55 53 Looks like Intrade will give ObamaCare a 90% chance of passing it is now at 88%       Looks like Soros is keeping up his end of the bargain.

56 55 So, the House can only pass this monstrosity to the President's desk if it's passed in its current form. Otherwise, they have to send it to the Senate.

Or...

If the bill passes the House tomorrow, it ____.
If it doesn't pass, it ____.

57 Here is where we were screwed by SCOTUS in 1914 withRainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914)

Even if there is judicial power to inquire whether a provision in a duly promulgated act of Congress raising revenue originated in the House of Representatives in accordance with Art. I, § 7 of the Constitution, it is sufficient if it appears that it was an amendment in the Senate to an act that originated in the House; and, after the act has been enrolled and duly authenticated, the court will not inquire whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill.

58 "... the court will not inquire whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill."

Which is why one expansion of judicial power I'd actually approve of would be a "single-subject" amendment to the US Constitution.  Most state constitutions have such provisions, requiring that bills passed by the state legislature be "limited to a single subject" or similar language.  It prevents, to some extent, gargantuan bills full of riders and earmarks unrelated to their purported purpose.

59 Most state constitutions have such provisions, requiring that bills passed by the state legislature be "limited to a single subject" or similar language.

It would take an article 5 convention to get that in there with the crap-weasels we have in Congress now. I have reached the point where I think that we do need one of those because, even with the potential for harm that it would give, what is going on now is much worse.

Especially if the convention works under the similar rules for the last one in which each State only gets "one" vote on accepting the wording of each paragraph.  

60

I will give head to ANY Senator...including Barbwa Boxer in return for their promise to vote for health care reform.

Call me, I'm available.

61 That was beautiful.

62

From this I deduce that Jack M. is either Eddie Haskell or Wayne Arnold.

63

@11: "Republican Senators keep saying (with bravado) "bring it" & we'll name names & we'll shred it & we'll filibuster it."

Sorry, can you please? History is on line 2.....

64

@47: "We are going ream you with lawsuits, tax revolt, insurance revolt and vote your asses out of office this fall."

Then the entire economy falls apart once and for all on your watch, you get booted out forever, and we add cap&trade and amensty, too.  When, not if, when this passes, it's mate for you in two, no matter what you do.

Love and kisses,

The Donks.

65 Jack M. brings it .

66 LOL.  Thanks.  I needed that.

67 ãäÊÏíÇÊ -æÙÇÆÝ - ÝÓÇÊíä - ÇÒíÇÁ

68 laptop battery
laptop ac adapter
hermes handbag

69 Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have created some nice practices and we are looking to swap solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.

70 http://www.buybrandcheap.com