To: Oldpuppymax
I’ve understood in the past (and in this case) the Senate takes a bill that did originate in the House and strip it bear of it’s original meaning and then tack on what is essentially a new bill (or possibly as one amendment) onto the old House bill.
The procedure certainly side steps the intent of the constitution, but technically meets the requirement. It has been done before..
21 posted on
01/08/2014 9:45:43 AM PST by
IamConservative
(The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
To: IamConservative
RE :”
I’ve understood in the past (and in this case) the Senate takes a bill that did originate in the House and strip it bear of it’s original meaning and then tack on what is essentially a new bill (or possibly as one amendment) onto the old House bill.
The procedure certainly side steps the intent of the constitution, but technically meets the requirement. It has been done before..” Yep,
24 posted on
01/08/2014 9:50:27 AM PST by
sickoflibs
(Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
To: IamConservative
The earliest example I found of this practice was in 1833 by Henry Clay. (Hind’s Precedents Chapter XLVII pg 943)
A 180+ year practise of the Senate might be overturned by the courts but not lightly. Certainly not through a mere stay.
37 posted on
01/08/2014 10:13:01 AM PST by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson