Replies

You are incorrect. The bill, HR 3590, was not a crime bill. From the wikipedia, for convenience: "Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[88] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[89] 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.[90]"

From the Library of Congress, the opening paragraph and headers from the original bill:

"To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009'. SEC. 2. WAIVER OF RECAPTURE OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS ON QUALIFIED OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY."

In other words, a bill addressing tax revenues.

So what you fail to understand is that I've already done the research, and you haven't, and therefore your supercilious pontificating is empty, and makes you look arrogant and uninformed.

Here's the LOC link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590.ih:

The actual bill that passed “originated” in the Senate. It may have had a house bill number but it was not a house bill. It was an abandoned house bill that had never been sent for a vote in the Senate before it was stripped of all of its text and title.

It was not intended at that time to be a revenue bill. It only became a revenue bill when John Roberts declared it to be one. The origination issue was never before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t raised because no one bothered to even make the argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax.

The question before the court is whether this kind of political hanky panky is constitutional. Obviously you think it is.