Thread: BILL MAY DIE IN SENATE!!

the_patriot wrote:

Either way, we MUST keep our efforts up and really crank up the intensity.

I really like the way you all think!

We need to stop this amnesty bill. Put the pressure on them everyone!!!!

Originally Posted by Nouveauxpoor

Originally Posted by magyart

I've been calling my Senators twice a day. Senator Brown's staff continues to ask for my zip code. I've given them several from central OH.

Sen. Voinovich's office no longer inquires about my zip code. I suspect he wants to vote in favor of this bill. He supported the Senate's bill last year.
Since we are both Catholic, I've informed his office the Catholic Church is WRONG to support this legislation. If the church was to give aid to someone that needs it, fine, but they also need to buy them a bus ticket home.

I am sending an i.o.u. to the church in place of my monthly check until they get out of the business of harboring criminals. They understand that.

PERFECT

I think we should just start vocally advocating taxing them, perhaps they will get the message....

Originally Posted by Nouveauxpoor

I am sending an i.o.u. to the church in place of my monthly check until they get out of the business of harboring criminals. They understand that.

I hope you can get others to do the same. Money talks a lot louder than people want to admit that it does!

BTW, welcome here to ALIPAC!!

It very likely will not die in the senate,,,But in the house is what this is about the blue slip, but I think that is why Bush wents the tax part removed. So it will make it through. In which if it doe's it may even pass the house.

I've sent out over 800 faxes in the last 15 hours........plus phone calls.......I'm trying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry.....that was 800 emails.....

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

Sorry.....that was 800 emails.....

That is fantastic!

I have been on a rampage as well.
Made dozens of calls and sent close to 300 emails!

Keep it up folks!
Let them know that you will NOT stand for this bill!

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp

The Origination Clause of the Constitution (Article I, section 7) grants the House the sole prerogative to originate revenue legislation. Yet I have heard Senators say they must wait for an appropriations bill to come over from the House. Must spending bills also originate in the House? How important is the power to originate in the actual process? - 5/3/00
You are right that the Constitution is clear about revenue legislation but does not directly address appropriations, or spending, measures. Extending the House's right to originate to the spending category has been a matter of long dispute between the House and the Senate. The Senate has repeatedly asserted its right to originate spending legislation, adopted resolutions to that end, even called for commissions to study the dispute. However, the House has a different perspective. House precedents have defined "revenue measures" to include general appropriations bills, claiming that at the time the Constitution was adopted, "raising revenue" meant "raising money and appropriating the same."

So, whenever the Senate does initiate appropriations legislation, the House practice is to return it to the Senate with a blue piece of paper attached citing a constitutional infringement of House prerogatives. The practice of returning such bills and amendments to the Senate without action is known as "blue-slipping."

Without House action, Senate-initiated spending legislation cannot make it into law. So in practice, the Senate rarely attempts to initiate such bills anymore, and if it does, the House is diligent about returning them. Regardless of one's opinion of the correct interpretation of the Constitutional provision, the House refusal to consider such Senate legislation settles the matter in practice.

However, just as is spelled out in the Constitution for revenue bills, the Senate right to amend appropriations bills received from the House is not disputed. As with all legislation, a House-Senate conference will have to come to terms with the differences between the two versions of an appropriations bill. Each chamber will have to adopt the compromise conference text. So in the end, the process gives the Senate an equivalent role to the House in determining the text of both revenue and appropriations bills.

One can argue over how much influence the power of origination actually has. It sets the initial framework, which means deciding which matters to include and which to leave out. At times, the House debate and amendment process may build some political momentum which the Senate may find difficult to ignore. On the other hand, while the Senate cannot vote first on a revenue bill, and by extension, an appropriations bill, and send it to the House for legislative action, there is no restriction on the Senate's consideration of such measures before the House has acted.

The Senate need not wait for the House papers to come over before starting legislative consideration of revenue or spending bills, unless it so wishes. To save time, the Senate often will process their own bills through committee, and even debate and amend them on the floor. It completes all the legislative stages up to the vote on final passage of the Senate-numbered measure. The legislation is then held until the House version comes over. The Senate proceeds to amend the House version to reflect the text of its own product, then passes the amended House bill, and returns the revised measure to the House. This practice provides the Senate with the opportunity to make legislative progress on spending and revenue measures even if the House has not yet completed work on them.


MY QUESTION: HOW DOES THE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL QUALITY AS AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL.............OTHER THEN THE $2.5 TRILLION IT IS GOING TO COST TAXPAYERS?

The amnesty bill requires that Z visa applicants and renewers pay a several thousand dollar fee.