Poll: Is Senate Taxcut Bill Constitutional?All Bills Regarding Taxes Start in House of Representatives?Senate Left DC?

You posted the answer in your article:

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house which is why the appropriations bills that are enacted begin with "H.R.", indicating a bill that originated in the House.

The tax cut extension bill was HR 3630 - Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011.

The Constitution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills," so in practice, the Senate and House each drafts and considers its own bill. The Senate then "cuts-and-pastes", substituting the language of its bill of a particular appropriations bill for the language of House bill, then agrees to the bill as amended.

The House passed the bill on December 13. It went to the Senate where it was amended and was voted through on December 20. The House and Senate have to pass the same version of the bill so the House had to vote again on the amended version.

Once again, Therese, you need to check your facts.

HR (House Resolution) 3630 - Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Extension - Key Vote

• Dec. 20, 2011 House Nonconcurrence Vote Passed
• Dec. 17, 2011 Senate Bill Passed
• Dec. 13, 2011 House Bill Passed
• Dec. 9, 2011 House Introduced

It would seem that this started in the House, was revised in the Senate and made its way back to the House for Concurrence, just as the Constitution calls for. Keep trying, Therese, one of these times you will actually be factual; just do your homework first after jumping to conclusions (probably floated by others).

Is that legal?

Therese Nelson,

Yes. The Constitution only requires legislation that raises revenue to originate in the House (e.g. spending bills and tax increases). The Wikipedia article is wrong:

"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."

The Senate all left and refused to come back, is this Constitutional?

Yes and no. The entire Senate did not leave. The chamber will be holding pro forma sessions scheduled for the 20th, 23rd, 27th, and 30th of December, and the 3rd, 6th, 10th, 17th, and 20th of January. The entire break, in other words.

This story is a mess.

To say I've lost "constitutional" trust in either the House or the Senate would be an understatement. More of this style of government is giving the Executive branch incentive to increase their power. And they definitely don't give a rip about the Constitution either.

Its a good thing that Therese is not a constitutional attorney; she seems to want to be the entire Supreme Court all within her. The House Resolution (3630) originated in the House; it was too extreme, so the Senate modified provisions and sent it back. Then, the House passed the Resolution with the Senate modifications. All of this is unconstitutional according to the new, self-proclaimed, self-described, constitutional expert.

The Senate did not return

Therese Nelson,

The entire chamber doesn't have to. Pro forma sessions don't require a quorum. I doubt more than a single senator is required to be in the chamber for more than about ten seconds, and that's only once every fourth day.

Seeing as how many congressmen live in D.C., there shouldn't be a problem finding people to do the job, even over an extended period of time.

That is Unconstitutional. You are wrong.

As I pointed out to you early this morning, the Senate is also holding pro forma sessions during the break and that is all it is required to do.

The premise of your story is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution on two relatively simple topics and there is plenty of material online to explain it to people having trouble.

I'll explain one of them as clearly as I can since you seem to have accepted being wrong about raising revenue.

The House is "staying open" during the break using pro forma sessions (so that the entire House need not remain in Washington) to prevent the Senate from adjourning, to prevent President Obama from using his constitutional right to make recess appointments. Fair enough. Democrats did the same thing to George W. Bush from 2007 onward, until Bush made an agreement with the Democratic leadership not to recess appoint judges.

Because the entire Senate doesn't want to stay in Washington while the House is on vacation, it too will hold pro forma sessions to "stay open" during the break. As with the House, these sessions only require *1* person to go up to the big chair, gavel the chamber into session, then gavel it back out. It literally takes only a few seconds.

Our government has been doing this on and off for the past decade. Nobody I've seen in five years of writing and reading about politics thinks it's unconstitutional, except you. Not Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or Megyn Kelly, or George Will, or Bill Kristol, or Charles Krauthammer, or Ann Coulter, or Michele Malkin, or Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush when it happened to him. Nor the entire Bush Department of Justice. Not Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul, or Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry. Not even conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation.

If you think it's lame that both chambers are going on a month long vacation instead of doing their jobs, I'm right there with you. But you're wrong about the Constitution.

Once again, Therese, you need to check your facts.

when does the right wing echo chamber require facts? as long as a bit of the doo sticks to the wall, they are happy.

The Senate only needs the consent of the House to adjourn for more than 3 days.

On December 17, 2011:

By unanimous consent, on the request of Mr. Wyden, at 3:33 p.m., the Senate adjourned, under its order of today, until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, December 20, 2011.

Hmm. Not more than 3 days.

On December 20, 2011:

Under the authority of the order of Saturday, December 17, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. the ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned, under its order of Saturday, December 17, 2011, until 9:30 a.m . on Friday, December 23, 2011.

Still not more than 3 days.

The Senate is scheduled to convene today for a pro forma session at 9:30 AM (2 days 22 hours 30 minutes after they were last in session).

pro forma session:

A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

They left for more than 3 days and also refused to come back, Speaker Boehner stated that the Senate refused to come back. They adjourned without consent of House.

John Beonher said so? Well, There is your problem...believing anything the grim weaper says.

As Grumpy Jon laid out in #1.4. The Bill Clearly orginated from the house. You are wrong on that point.

As Reported
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/calendars.htm
Floor Schedule

Friday, Dec 23, 2011
9:30 a.m.: Convene for a pro forma session.

Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Dec 20, 2011
The Senate convened at 11:00 a.m. for a pro forma session.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2011-12-23/pdf/CCAL-112scal-2011-12-23.pdf

Error #2 , the senate didn't convene for ore than 3 days, consistent with the constitution.

They left for more than 3 days..

Therese Nelson,

No, the Senate just held a pro forma session this morning. There's another scheduled for the 27th. How many days are in between the 23rd and 27th?

Three.

Here's a video of it: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/303363-1. You may recognize the man speaking a little after 9am EST this morning, from the Senate floor. His name is Harry Reid.

Please stop. You're destroying your credibility with this.

The President wanted a year bill , its just silly to pretend not...The 2 month bill is a compromise because the republican intransigence. It is meant to make sure that millions of Americans didn't lose unemployment over the christmas holiday, that 160 million americans taxes don't increase , and republicans were frist of largely opposed to the tax cut to begin with... and who in thoroughly unbelievable political theater, appointed 8 republicans, zero democrats, as a conference that would have passed a bill within a few days before the tax cut expired . Of those 8 repus, 5 voiced their objection to the payroll tax cut.

Nope It was the house bill, they revise it, and they sent it back to the house to approve the revision, the house rejected it , despite Beohners approval of it according to McConell. see #4.4, and #1.4 Which completely destroys your complaint about it not originating from the house, and that the senate left for an unconstitutional amount of time BEFORE christmas

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/calendars.htm
Floor Schedule

Friday, Dec 23, 2011
9:30 a.m.: Convene for a pro forma session.

Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Dec 20, 2011
The Senate convened at 11:00 a.m. for a pro forma session.

The Senate passed their own bill and left DC for more than 3 days, they left for Christmas vacation and refused to come back.

Therese Nelson,

That's a misstatement. The Senate met in pro forma session this morning (the House did also) and has another session scheduled for the 27th and 30th, and six more in January.

Your story and almost every comment you've left on it, Therese, are wrong.