$850 Billion Bail-out bill is UnConstitutional

It started out at $700 Billion and the house said no. It is Un-Constitutional for the Senate to originate Revenue bills.

U.S. Constitution

Article. I
Section. 7
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.

www.archives.gov...

So the senate is attempting to bypass the constitution and the will of the people by adding the original $700 Billion dollar bailout to a previously passed mental health bill.

Are they nuts?

The $700 Billion bail out bill has grown to over 450+ pages and $850 Billion.

Barely 48 hours after the House rejected the Treasury’s bailout plan, the august body took a previously passed House bill mandating that insurance companies cover mental health benefits, added in the core $700 billion bailout, laced in money for rural school districts and disaster relief, expanded FDIC deposit insurance coverage, and topped it off with over $150 billion in old and new tax breaks for businesses, individuals in high-income states, individuals living in states without an income tax, and various interests such as wooden-arrow makers and film production crews.

reason.com...

Can they do that?

Jeez, why don't they just make it $15 Trillion and give everyone money.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust

Jeez, why don't they just make it $15 Trillion and give everyone money.

Because they only need 850 billion for the people that matter. It would defeat the purpose of this scam if they were to distribute the money to everyone.

I'm no lawyer, but someone really, really needs to get to the bottom of this technicality if so, and to be honest I did not notice the 150Billion more that has been added, just those two things alone seem like it would have sparked great outrage.... any Constitutional gurus or lawyers out there to really answer this?

Originally posted by phinubian
I'm no lawyer, but someone really, really needs to get to the bottom of this technicality if so, and to be honest I did not notice the 150Billion more that has been added, just those two things alone seem like it would have sparked great outrage.... any Constitutional gurus or lawyers out there to really answer this?

If the House passes it maybe it will be struck down by the supreme court before it ever gets funded.

Does anyone know if it passes and it's contested in the court system if that will delay the payout of funds from the treasury?

It won't do much good to contest it in court after the money is payed out, ya know. We need some lawyers to look this thing over.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]

They have found some way around this. The House Rules Committee has passed HR 1516, 1517, 1525 and 1424 to go to the floor tomorrow

One (1516 I think) allows for a plain majority vote rather than 2/3rds vote for passage

The rest all are part of getting the bailout through.

Legal gymnastics at it's worst

U.S. Constitution

Article. I
Section. 7
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.

www.archives.gov...

That's the Constitution ,that's so yesterday

money is a scam in the first place, just like banking, just like politics, just like almost everything we lap up like lowly dogs every day of our lives and like it.
I'm disappointed, yet still not surprised. I'm pissed, yet what can I do except continue to call it all out for the sham it is and wait for a new enlightened age to dawn on man?



[edit on 2-10-2008 by dunwichwitch]

reply to post by In nothing we trust


..Nope, it's called a loop hole... dirty, nasty trick, but perfectly legal..

See..

It's considered an amendment, because in literal terms, it is. $850 billion? I was wondering what the final cost was up to.. so effin unbelievable.. I wan't out of this bastard country..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
so effin unbelievable.. I wan't out of this bastard country..

Give me liberty and the North American Union?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Rockpuck
so effin unbelievable.. I wan't out of this bastard country..

Give me liberty and the North American Union?

Is that an anarchy symbol on the back of that Amero coin?

Whoa dude, I'm getting mixed messages.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Is that an anarchy symbol on the back of that Amero coin?

You know I think it is.



It also looks like the symbol for the International Workingmens Association, which originated out of the industrial workers revolutions of 1848 europe.

The Masonic "level in a circle" at first used by the Federal Council of Spain of the International Workingmen's Association. Note the inclusion of the Plumb, one of the working tools of operative masonry, and a symbol of rectitude of conduct[

The first recorded use of the A in a circle by anarchists was by the Federal Council of Spain of the International Workers Association. This was set up by the freemason, Giuseppe Fanelli in 1868. It predates its adoption by anarchists as it was used as a symbol by freemasons amongst others.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Seems fairly clear...what loophole exactly?

Sect. 5. All bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the salaries of the officers of Government, shall originate in the House of Representatives, and shall not be altered or amended by the Senate. No money shall be drawn from the Public Treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations that shall originate in the House of Representatives.

My response:

We the people, in the Information Age, hereby proclaim that the limitations of travel and communication by the people no longer apply and that rule by representative government which no longer reflects the will of the people be abolished.

I'm not an attorney but, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once...

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

This is a commercial product, it is for sale, it is not currency, because if were called 'coin', 'currency' and 'legal tender' then it should immediately be seized by the Secret Service and all the participants in its distribution jailed for counterfiting.

But if anyone happens to come accross verifiable eyes on information as to the so-called Amero paper and coin currency and where exactly it is being held in all of its billions of dollars, let me know ... I have some friends who would love to get a look at it before it gets distributed.

I'm telling you... We need a new Constitution - one which insists that once passed, nothing can be added and subtracted, one that disallows adding stuff that is not related (arrowheads!?! in a bailout bill?), and so on. I believe that each bill should stand on its own without unrelated creppola, elimination of riders. This would eliminate pork except where the specific pork is voted on, and reduce the little stuff, that the Federal government should really not be spending time on. It would also reduce the number of pages a representative or senator has to read!

Maybe I'll write one m'self...

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It started out at $700 Billion and the house said no. It is Un-Constitutional for the Senate to originate Revenue bills.

U.S. Constitution

Article. I
Section. 7
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.

www.archives.gov...

...

OMG. I TOTALLY forgot about that!

I wonder why someone with deep pockets and a libertarian attitude doesn't file an injunction with a federal court? While having an abundance of the latter, I am sadly lacking in the former.

I was wondering when someone was going to read the Constutution and point of the facts. This means that after they pass the bill and sign it into law, someone can sue in court for an injunction to cease and the bill will be ruled... you got... "unconstitutional" Brilliant !

Originally posted by Fromabove
This means that after they pass the bill and sign it into law, someone can sue in court for an injunction to cease and the bill will be ruled... you got... "unconstitutional" Brilliant !

Honestly I don't think they really care if they get the money or not. I think it's a delaying tactic to bring the world financial markets to a feverish pitch of panic and stir up the american people.

Plan A was to piss of the american people so bad they hit the streets. Obviously that's not working. I fear plan B involves 2 small low yield nuclear devices. Either scenareo would allow them to declare martial law and will destroy the world economy.



[edit on 4-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]

The most obvious unconstitutional thing about it right off the top is that the bill passed while Congress was under duress, with the threat of Physical Martial Law to the citizens of the United States.

That is unjustified. That is dictatorship.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch


Is that an anarchy symbol on the back of that Amero coin?

It could be.

Or, you know, it could just be an A in a circle. Amero starts with an "A", and the Amero coin is a round circle.

-LS

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
abolished.

I'm not an attorney but, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once...

sorry you totally made me laugh with that one