Sowell Explains why it is Obama and Reid who are Responsible for the Government Shut

[Foxfyre]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/994953_655176557836718_1364223825_n.jpg

Best explanation I have seen thus far.

The GOP passed a budget that did not include Obamacare because they want it revised or or eliminated. This is a power the House has always had in our Republic, and every prior Senate and President negotiated to allow the government to reopen.

That is until this wannabe dictator and his ass-kissing Majority Leader in the Senate came along and refused to negotiate at all.

Then Herr Obama punitively shut down every office he could that he thought would hurt the American public, using us as hostages for his political leverage.

Obama is a disgrace to our country and the Presidency.

First, the bill did NOT include defunding Obamacare, that was added in an ammendment. The House rejected the ammendment, which of course is their right. The Republicans the made a rule change so that only the majority leader could propose a vote without the ammendment when normally any member could.

Second, Sowell made the false claim that all spending bills must originate in House. That's simply not true and if you actually read the constitution, Article 1, section 7, you would have known that.

Sowell has also quipped that the fact that he has never murdered an editor is proof that the death penalty is effective. In the article, he indeed did appear to say that spending bills must originate in the House. He is enough of a constitutionalist, however, that I rather believe that him saying this without any qualification was an inadvertent slip, or an editor edited out the qualification.

There has been controversy on Constitutional intent about that:

A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending.

The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.
Constitutional FAQ Answer #125 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

 

[rightwinger]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[mamooth]

"GOP shill pretending to be independent makes up crazy stories. Film at 11"

Fortunately, this is just Sowell's usual parroting of Republican talking points. His previous stuff has been crazier. Comparing President Obama to Hitler, stuff like that.

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com

Of course, "independents" always say President Obama is just like Hitler, because he had the federal government helping with an oil spill. After all, the Constitution doesn't specifically say the feds can help with an oil spill, hence ... JUST LIKE HITLER. If you don't understand why President Obama is just like Hitler, you obviously don't have the keen analytical mind of a brilliant constitutional scholar like Thomas Sowell.

 

[pinqy]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

 

[Foxfyre]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

Nobody has suggested that only the House can have any input. But according to Obama and Reid, the House should not be allowed ANY input because it has a GOP majority that disagrees with Obama and Reid. And that too is bizarre.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Where is that in the Constitution?

Just now waking up?

Power of the Purse

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

Debate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy.

At the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate—like the House of Lords—should be limited in its consideration of budget bills. The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. Smaller states, which would be overrepresented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. Speaking in favor of the provision, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.” The provision in the committee’s report to the Convention was adopted, five to three, with three states divided on the question. The Convention reconsidered the matter over the course of two months, but the provision was finally adopted, nine to two, in September 1787.

The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies. This strongly-held belief was rooted in the framers’ experiences with England, where the king had wide latitude over spending once the money had been raised.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

My statement stands.

 

[pinqy]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

My statement stands.

Right, because you can't actually rebut what I've said.

Again....power of origination does not mean sole determination of all aspects.

Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

My statement stands.

Right, because you can't actually rebut what I've said.

Again....power of origination does not mean sole determination of all aspects.

Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs.

You haven't offered anything that requires a rebuttal. My statement is an accurate and true statement.

You misinterpret what SCOTUS has ruled on or you're deliberately being stupid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who Shut Down the Government?Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Tom Sowell, like all on the Right, never quote anything or anyone accurately always changing the words to fit their lies. On top of that they leave out anything that shows the true context of their misquote.

Artical 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So we see that it is REVENUE bills that originate in the House, not SPENDING bills, and furthermore the Senate can amend ANY House bills, whether revenue or spending or otherwise.

So quite in accordance with the Constitution of the US, the Senate amended the House bill, approved the amendment, and sent the bill back to the House. Boner then refused to bring up the amended bill, knowing it would pass, and thus owns the shutdown entirely himself.

No, Reids rejection of any discussion on revising Obamacare at all and his refusal to pass almost any bills that would keep popular functions of the federal government funded, coupled with Obama's punitive closings and barricading of things that require no funding shows that it is EXACTLY THE DEMOCRAT leadership that is driving this shutdown.

The historical record of EVERY PRIOR SHUT DOWN BEING NEGOTIATED UNTIL THIS ONE, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Obama owns the shutdown and the Big media, lying shills, partisan liars and hapless dupes that believe it is the GOP that is at fault is what is keeping Obama and Reid determined to make the GOP buckle and give up without so much as a fig-leaf of dignity and or even the illusion of compromise.

 

[JimBowie1958]

obviously you have not read the Constitution either.
The Constitution says nothing .about where spending bills must originate. Read what Article 1 Section 7 actually says.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Exactly. Nothing about spending and none of this idiocy about "supremacy."

There is nothing idiotic about the House being regarded as the supreme authority on revenue raising bills, nor on the budget. That was the plain intent of the Founding Fathers, no matter how irrelevant you may regard them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The power of the purse has always been in the House of Representatives hands.

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

The POTUS and Senate obviously can have input, but currently Obama and Reid are standing the Constitution on its head claiming that the House is somehow holding a gun to the governments head and refusing to negotiate at all despite this being the long running practice of our government.

Just proving once again that the Party of Damnedocrats is full of liars and buffoons.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Having the sole origination of revenue bills is hardly power of the purse....the Senate can ammendment or change, and the President can veto. The idea that only the House can have any input is bizarre.

My statement stands.

Right, because you can't actually rebut what I've said.

Again....power of origination does not mean sole determination of all aspects.

And no one except for Obama and Reid are claiming to have a monopoly on the budget.

But the House has the right to defund anything it disagrees with in the budget and Obama and Reid need to curtail their arrogant posturing and NEGOTIATE.

 

[edthecynic]

Who Shut Down the Government?Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Tom Sowell, like all on the Right, never quote anything or anyone accurately always changing the words to fit their lies. On top of that they leave out anything that shows the true context of their misquote.

Artical 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So we see that it is REVENUE bills that originate in the House, not SPENDING bills, and furthermore the Senate can amend ANY House bills, whether revenue or spending or otherwise.

So quite in accordance with the Constitution of the US, the Senate amended the House bill, approved the amendment, and sent the bill back to the House. Boner then refused to bring up the amended bill, knowing it would pass, and thus owns the shutdown entirely himself.

No, Reids rejection of any discussion on revising Obamacare at all and his refusal to pass almost any bills that would keep popular functions of the federal government funded, coupled with Obama's punitive closings and barricading of things that require no funding shows that it is EXACTLY THE DEMOCRAT leadership that is driving this shutdown.

The historical record of EVERY PRIOR SHUT DOWN BEING NEGOTIATED UNTIL THIS ONE, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Obama owns the shutdown and the Big media, lying shills, partisan liars and hapless dupes that believe it is the GOP that is at fault is what is keeping Obama and Reid determined to make the GOP buckle and give up without so much as a fig-leaf of dignity and or even the illusion of compromise.

BULLSHIT!

The GOP planned the shutdown in advance, and then changed the House rules so only the GOP can end the shutdown, preventing the bill passed by the Senate from ever being voted on because the GOP knows it will pass and end their shutdown

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Jd-iaYLO1A]The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice - YouTube[/ame]

Late in the evening on September 30, 2013, the House Rules Committee Republicans changed the Rules of the House so that the ONLY Member allowed to call up the Senate's clean CR for a vote was Majority Leader Eric Cantor or his designee -- all but guaranteeing the government would shut down a few hours later and would stay shut down. Previously, any Member would have had the right to bring the CR up for a vote. Democracy has been suspended in the House of Representatives.

 

[pinqy]

My statement stands.

Right, because you can't actually rebut what I've said.

Again....power of origination does not mean sole determination of all aspects.

Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs.

You haven't offered anything that requires a rebuttal. My statement is an accurate and true statement.

You misinterpret what SCOTUS has ruled on or you're deliberately being stupid.

Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897)

The case is not one that requires either an extended examination of precedents, or a full discussion as to the meaning of the words in the constitution, 'bills for raising revenue.' What bills belong to that class is a question of such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute, is clearly not a revenue bill which the constitution declares must originate in the house of representatives. ...

Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906) cites Twin City v Nebeker and Justice Story

The first contention of appellant is that the acts of Congress are revenue measures, and therefore should have originated in the House of Representatives, and not in the Senate, and, to sustain the contention, appellant submits an elaborate argument. In answer to the contention the case of Twin City Nat. Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 , 42 L. ed. 134, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 766, need only be cited. It was observed there that it was a part of wisdom not to attempt to cover by a general statement what bills shall be said to be 'bills for raising revenue' within the meaning of those words in the Constitution, but it was said, quoting Mr. Justice Story, 'that the practical construction of the Constitution, and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question, proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue.' 1 Story, Const. 880. …
Whatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.

So how am I misinterpreting them? How are they not saying that the Senate can originate bills that impose taxes?

 

[bodecea]

So...how is all this finger-pointing working out for the GOP?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who Shut Down the Government?Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Tom Sowell, like all on the Right, never quote anything or anyone accurately always changing the words to fit their lies. On top of that they leave out anything that shows the true context of their misquote.

Artical 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So we see that it is REVENUE bills that originate in the House, not SPENDING bills, and furthermore the Senate can amend ANY House bills, whether revenue or spending or otherwise.

So quite in accordance with the Constitution of the US, the Senate amended the House bill, approved the amendment, and sent the bill back to the House. Boner then refused to bring up the amended bill, knowing it would pass, and thus owns the shutdown entirely himself.

No, Reids rejection of any discussion on revising Obamacare at all and his refusal to pass almost any bills that would keep popular functions of the federal government funded, coupled with Obama's punitive closings and barricading of things that require no funding shows that it is EXACTLY THE DEMOCRAT leadership that is driving this shutdown.

The historical record of EVERY PRIOR SHUT DOWN BEING NEGOTIATED UNTIL THIS ONE, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Obama owns the shutdown and the Big media, lying shills, partisan liars and hapless dupes that believe it is the GOP that is at fault is what is keeping Obama and Reid determined to make the GOP buckle and give up without so much as a fig-leaf of dignity and or even the illusion of compromise.

BULLSHIT!

The GOP planned the shutdown in advance, and then changed the House rules so only the GOP can end the shutdown, preventing the bill passed by the Senate from ever being voted on because the GOP knows it will pass and end their shutdown

...

Late in the evening on September 30, 2013, the House Rules Committee Republicans changed the Rules of the House so that the ONLY Member allowed to call up the Senate's clean CR for a vote was Majority Leader Eric Cantor or his designee -- all but guaranteeing the government would shut down a few hours later and would stay shut down. Previously, any Member would have had the right to bring the CR up for a vote. Democracy has been suspended in the House of Representatives.

Wow, you mean they have acted like EVERY OTHER PREVIOUS DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED HOUSE?

Say its not so, Sherlock. /s

 

[JimBowie1958]

So...how is all this finger-pointing working out for the GOP?

Pretty good since their objective is to save this nation from crazy and reckless spending by Democrats and neocons.

Polls are irrelevant if you are doing what is best for the nation.

 

[OnePercenter]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/994953_655176557836718_1364223825_n.jpg

Best explanation I have seen thus far.

The GOP passed a budget that did not include Obamacare because they want it revised or or eliminated. This is a power the House has always had in our Republic, and every prior Senate and President negotiated to allow the government to reopen.

That is until this wannabe dictator and his ass-kissing Majority Leader in the Senate came along and refused to negotiate at all.

Then Herr Obama punitively shut down every office he could that he thought would hurt the American public, using us as hostages for his political leverage.

Obama is a disgrace to our country and the Presidency.

The Republican Senate was willing to pass ACA (which is needed because a Republican President screwed with the HMO act) if environmental regulations were lifted/reduced and the Keystone pipeline was passed. YES, that is a DISGRACE.