Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
Umm, with your level of understanding,
you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate
funding bills. It’s bills for
raising revenue which shall originate in the House.
/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The
Origination Clause, sometimes called the
Revenue Clause, is
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the
United States Constitution.
This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all
money bills must have their
first reading (and any other initial readings) in the
House of Commons before being sent to the
House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the
power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.
This clause was part of the
Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.