Comments about ‘Letter: Since a revenue-raising bill originated in the Senate, isn't it null and void?’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 7 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

They must have used an old legislative trick designed to get around the Constituion. It's called a "shell bill". It's a trick used by both parties from time to time.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT


only in Utah do we have to read these types of letters....


Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Impeach the Senate or impeach the House? All of them?

Who would hold the hearings? Those who didn't vote for it? But wouldn't that be seen as simple politics?

Can the House not agree to the "suggestion" by the Senate and adopt it as their own?

Is this the very first time this had happened?

Far East USA, SC

You want to impeach Mitch McConnell?

Durham, NC

Ok... hold on. For the last 4 years all we have heard is that the Senate and Obama are to blame for us not having a budget.... are you now saying now the sole responsibility for the budget is the Houses..... are we attempting to have our cake, and eat it too? Which is it? Pick your poison.

If what you claim is the case, lets take this bill to the Supreme Court, have it invalidated (sorry, no high crimes here) and lets throw the ball back into the Houses lap. Lets see if they actually do ANYTHING. They haven't produced a single thing yet... and yes, the House gets to have all the credit - and the blame,

Problem solved..... Hi- Ho - off the cliff we go.

PS - this was an "extension and modification" not an origination. It was a motion to extend current rate discounts.... but lets just skippy right over that... its a detail, and you know what happens when you pay attention to details...right?

one old man
Ogden, UT

The writer of this letter really needs to turn the hate radio off and do some serious homework.

Salt Lake City, UT

House Leader John Boenher was chief negotiator, so the revenue bill orignated with the House of Representatives. Your statement "originated in the Senate", is wrong - the Senate simply passed their part first.

Once a deal was reached, the Senate got right to work and passed the bill. The House Republicans also got right to work, but their first job is appearing on television. Thus, they passed their part after the Senate.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

I love this suggestion. Impeach 'em all! Impeach the whole darn lot of 'em! All because a bill negotiated by Speaker Boehner got voted on in the Senate first! Love it!

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

I'm for impeaching the whole lot of them and then imposing a two-term limit on both houses of Congress. Maybe less. How about a 3-week limit for members of the House. They could easily accomplish all the work they did last year in 21 days.

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

By waiting until the 1st of January, the raising of taxes is actually a lowering of taxes because it raises taxes less than they were raised by the Budget Control Act.

If it seems confusing, you just need to listen to liberals more and then it will make sense.

Salt Lake City, UT

They took an old house bill that was passed and heavily modified the language of it then sent it back for the agreeing on language part of it so it did technically originate in the House.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm more concerned about Constitutional trampling’s like;
the Patriot Act,
Citizens United,
cowering behind the 2nd amendment to protect the sale and use of Assault rifles in domestic terrorism,
Political denial of Scientifically proven Global Warming,
Those petitioning to Secede from the Union because their guy lost a Constitutional election,
and not 1 but 2 - 12 year old undeclared and unfunded WARS

than I am about who initiated an over-due 4 month late annual legislative budget.


To the letter writer: Should all bills that are unconstitutional be considered "high crimes and treason"? What about if only part of the bill is unconstitutional? For example, if the Supreme Court finds part of DOMA unconstitutional, can all those who approved it be impeached?

What about state level bills? If a state legislature passes a law that violates the US Constitution, can all those who approved the bill be impeached?

What if the unconstitutional law was passed by voters instead of elected individuals? Are the voters then guilty of treason?

How far are you willing to go with this?

And wouldn't it make more sense to hold accountable those that failed to do their job and created the situation where someone else had to act? If the Republicans in the House had done what they were supposed to do, this would not be an issue. Why should they be rewarded for their dereliction of duty while those who stepped into the breach and acted are punished?

All American
Herriman, UT

Obviously you don't understand the process - which they did follow. The House passed the bill in August 2012 (that's 4 months previously!!). When they pass a bill, it goes to the Senate to either pass it "as is" (which never happens), or amend it to their liking. If they amend it, it must go back to the House for a vote - or they can amend it. If they amend it, it goes back to the Senate . . . you get the idea. It goes back and forth until a deal is struck. But all spending and tax bills MUST originate in the House - and this one did also.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" if you are so concerned about those constitutional items being trampled, why do you continue to support Obama?

He not only made the worst parts of the Patriot Act permanent, he added in the ability to indefinately detain US citizens.

Obama used the Citizens United ruling to get his super-pacs going on his campaign.

Obama allowed the DOJ to send guns to criminals, and now wants to disarm the US population.

Your favorite politicians deny the fact that Climate Change (FYI the term Global warming was done away with because of non-statistically significant warming over the past decade) is naturan. Your ilk uses flat earth thinking to use a consensus to determine what is scientific fact.

What wars are unfunded? Congress has approved funding for all wars. The only thing that has been questionable in the past 12 years was the way that Obama attacked Libya beyond what federal law allows.

So, if you are so concerned about our freedoms being lost, why do you continue to support the liberal/progressives that are destroying our freedoms faster than any previous President (besides FDR)?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

USS Enterprise, UT
To "LDS Liberal" if you are so concerned about those constitutional items being trampled, why do you continue to support Obama?


For the same reason I "supported" GW Bush...he's our President.
You really aren't an American patriot, or you'd know what I mean by that.
You continually put your party ahead of our Country.

BTW - and for the 12,000th time -- just becasue I didn't vote for Obama or Bush, doesn't mean I do or don't support them.

And for the record -- I voted REPUBLICAN last election.
and it wasn't Romney.

Far East USA, SC

To "LDS Liberal" if you are so concerned about those constitutional items being trampled, why do you continue to support Obama?

Red, In case you haven't noticed, both parties "trample the constitution" . It would be very hard to single out one party as being more of a "trampeler" (yes, I made that word up)

Yes, Obama made the "worst parts" permanent. As if that is worse than passing the legislation in the first place (ie GOP house, senate and president)

It takes some real cherry picking (which you do very well) to single out Obama. (Or Bush for that matter, or Clinton.)

And guess what.. Had Romney been elected, he would trample also.

Durham, NC

: I always love the way some us the term "ilk" to try to be derisive... trying to establish some modeler of superiority without actually commenting on the subject what so ever. Then we move on to fully fantasy statements....

:Congress has approved funding for all wars. The only thing that has been questionable in the past 12 years was the way that Obama attacked Libya beyond what federal law allows.:

Really Redshirt... what Federal law was broken? Was Federal law broken in Panama when Reagan sent the troops in there? Was Federal Law broken in Granada? You do remember those - right? Was Federal Law broken in Somalia? Which federal law are you talking about?

Did you know there are only 5 wars that had official declaration of war.... War of 1812, Mexican American War, Spanish-American War, and World Wars 1 and II. Not Vietnam, Not Korea, Not Iraq war 1, neither II, nor Afghanistan.... so which law was broken.... in Libya?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" you did not support Bush like you do Obama. You find no fault with anything Obama does. You blame Bush and the Republicans for everything wrong with the country, while praising Obama for doing the same or worse. So again, why do you keep supporting and encouraging Obama to continue to trample the Constitution? You have shown your disdain for Bush and anything related to Republicans or Conservatives.

So again, why do you support everything that Obama does without question? Why do you not call for Obama's impeachment like you did Bush?

And what party do I belong to? Last I knew I was registered Independant. Do you know something I don't?

The fact is I put freedom ahead of any political party ideology.

To "UtahBlueDevil" depending on how you look at the deployment of US forces in Libya, Obama disregarded the War Power Act of 1973, which limits US involvement in combat to 60 days without Congressional Approval. The War Powers Act was not violated in Panama, Granada, or Somalia.

Eagle Mountain, UT

The problem here is Article II describes the Executive Branch. From what I understand, Congressmen cannot be impeached, and in fact are granted immunity from what is said and done in Congress, as per Article I. The two Houses have full authority to deal with their members as they see fit.

If you dislike how your Congressman votes, vote him out.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments