All Bills Start in the House of Representatives

The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause,^{[one] [2]} is Article I, Section vii, Clause 1 of the U.Due south. Constitution. The clause says that all bills for raising revenue must offset in the U.S. House of Representatives, just the U.South. Senate may suggest or concord with amendments, as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practise that all coin bills must take their start reading and any other initial readings in the House of Eatables before they are sent to the House of Lords. The practice was intended to ensure that the ability of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, just the British practise was modified in America by allowing the Senate to improve these bills.

This clause was part of the Peachy Compromise betwixt modest and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small-scale states in the Senate and then the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate by compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to senators from pocket-sized states.

Text [edit]

The clause reads as follows:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the Firm of Representatives; just the Senate may propose or agree with Amendments as on other Bills.

Groundwork [edit]

The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 and adopted in 1789. Several state constitutions followed British practice by providing that "money bills" must start in the more representative co-operative of the state legislature.^[3]

Vesting the power of origination in the House of Representatives was part of the Bang-up Compromise in which the framers too agreed to allow equality in the Senate, regardless of a country's population, and to allow representation in the Business firm based on a land'southward population.^[iv] The framers adopted the Great Compromise on July 16, 1787. The draft clause then stated that "all bills for raising or appropriating money.... shall originate in the [representative business firm], and shall not exist altered or amended by the [other house]. ... "^[5]

The Origination Clause was modified later in 1787 to reduce the Firm's power by allowing the Senate to amend revenue bills^[six] and by removing cribbing bills from the scope of the clause (the House and Senate have disagreed on the latter indicate).^{[ane] [7] [8]} However, a proposal was defeated that would have reduced the House's power even more by changing "bills for raising acquirement" to "bills for raising money for the purpose of revenue."^[v] James Madison explained:^[nine]

In many acts, specially in the regulations of trade, the object would be twofold. The raising of acquirement would be one of them. How could it be determined which was the primary or predominant 1; or whether information technology was necessary that acquirement shd: be the sole object, in exclusion even of other incidental effects.

Regarding the decision to allow Senate amendments, some of the reasoning was given by Theophilus Parsons during the convention in Massachusetts that ratified the Constitution. He said that otherwise, "representatives might tack whatever strange matter to a money-pecker, and hogtie the Senate to concur or lose the supplies."^[xi] Madison believed that the departure betwixt a permissible Senate subpoena and an impermissible Senate amendment would "turn on the degree of connection between the matter & object of the bill and the alteration or subpoena offered to it."^[12]

The Continental Congress so had a rule: "No new motility or proposition shall be admitted under color of subpoena as a substitute for a question or proffer under argue until it is postponed or disagreed to."^[3] At the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution, the delegate William Grayson was concerned that a substitute amendment could have the same upshot as an origination: "the Senate could strike out every give-and-take of the pecker except the word whereas, or any other introductory word, and might substitute new words of their own."^[13] Grayson was not convinced by Madison's argument that "the starting time role of the clause is sufficiently expressed to exclude all doubts" virtually where the origination must occur.^[14]

In its final grade, the Origination Clause was a major selling signal for the ratification of the Constitution. James Madison, who supported the concluding version during and after the 1787 Convention,^[ten] wrote the following in Federalist 58 while the fence over ratification raged:^[13]

The house of representatives can non only refuse, merely they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the bag; that powerful musical instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British constitution, an babe and humble representation of the people, gradually enlarging the sphere of its activeness and importance, and finally reducing, equally far as it seems to take wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the authorities. This power over the pocketbook, may in fact be regarded every bit the most compleat and effectual weapon with which whatever constitution tin can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

The clause resonated with a citizenry opposed to tax without representation.^[fifteen]

Developments since 1789 [edit]

Many scholars accept written virtually the Origination Clause. Among the nearly widely influential was Joseph Story, who wrote in 1833 that the clause refers but to bills that levy taxes:^{[16] [17]}

[The clause] has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue. No ane supposes, that a bill to sell whatsoever of the public lands, or to sell public stock, is a neb to raise revenue, in the sense of the constitution. Much less would a bill be and then deemed, which only regulated the value of strange or domestic coins, or authorized a belch of insolvent debtors upon assignments of their estates to the United States, giving a priority of payment to the United States in cases of insolvency, although all of them might incidentally bring, revenue into the treasury.

The U.Southward. Supreme Court has decided several cases involving this clause, and all of those challenges to federal statutes failed.^[18] For case, in the 1911 case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Visitor, the Courtroom held, "The amendment was germane to the subject field-affair of the nib and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose."^[19] Yet, the plaintiffs in i lower court decision succeeded in hitting down a federal statute on Origination Clause grounds.^[20] The Supreme Court stated in the 1990 case of The states v. Munoz-Flores:^[21]

Both parties concur that "acquirement bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the give-and-take, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create acquirement." Twin Metropolis Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, 202 (1897) (citing 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 880, pp. 610–611 (3d ed. 1858)). The Court has interpreted this general rule to hateful that a statute that creates a detail governmental plan and that raises revenue to support that program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to back up Government more often than not, is not a "Bil[fifty] for raising Revenue" within the significant of the Origination Clause.

What this means exactly is disputed. According to one scholar, a statute is exterior the scope of the Origination Clause if it "imposes an exaction not to heighten acquirement, but to enforce a statute passed under the Commerce Clause or other enumerated ability."^[22] However, according to another scholar, even exactions imposed merely nether the taxing powers of Congress are outside the scope of the Origination Clause if Congress "earmarks revenues to fund a plan it creates."^[23] Regarding the latter view, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in 1990 that its trend was to "convert the Origination Clause into a formal accounting requirement.... "^[21]

A beak that lowers taxes instead of raises taxes may notwithstanding be a bill for raising revenue, co-ordinate to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[thirteen] Assuming that a beak is for raising acquirement, a further ambiguity in the clause involves how far the Senate'southward right to amend extends.^[seven] According to law professor Jack Balkin, the Senate may accept a Business firm-originated revenue neb and "substitute a unlike beak on a different subject."^[24] On the other hand, law professor Randy Barnett wrote, "The Supreme Court has never canonical the 'strike-and-supersede' procedure.... "^[25]

Not only the House of Representatives but too the Senate and the judiciary take sometimes tried to guard the function of the Firm with regard to origination of revenue bills. For case, as early as 1789, the Senate deemed itself helpless to pass a law levying a tax.^[1] As mentioned, a federal court in 1915 struck downward legislation contrary to the clause.^[20] The U.S. Supreme Courtroom has expressed willingness to address such issues, according to its 1990 stance by Justice Thurgood Marshall in Munoz-Flores:

A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny considering it was passed by both Houses and signed by the President than would be a law passed in violation of the Start Subpoena.

In 2012, the joint dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court instance National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius mentioned that "the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives" per the Origination Clause,^[26] though that event was non addressed by the bulk opinion.^[27] In 2014, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a challenge to the Affordable Intendance Act brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation based upon the clause was rejected by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Commune of Columbia,^[28] and that court later declined a asking to put the thing earlier all of its judges ("en banc") over a lengthy dissent authored by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.^[29]

In 2013, during the United states of america federal government shutdown of 2013 and the United states debt-ceiling crisis of 2013, the Republican-led House of Representatives could not agree on or pass an originating resolution to end the authorities crisis, as had been agreed, and and so the Democratic-led Senate used Nib H.R. 2775 to resolve the impasse by using the Standing Appropriations Act, 2014, an insignificant nib that had originated in the House, which the Senate amended all the tax and appropriation measures to satisfy the formal requirements of the Originating Clause.

See as well [edit]

Revenue-raising bills must have started in the House (right) and moved to the Senate (left).

• Commodity 1 of the Us Constitution (where the Origination Clause is located)
• Blue slip (when the House protests on Origination Clause grounds)
• Taxing and Spending Clause (authorizes Congress to levy taxes)
• Sixteenth Amendment (expands ability of Congress to levy taxes)
• Seventeenth Amendment (provides for directly ballot of two Senators for each country)
• Shell bill (legislative maneuver)
• Substitute amendment (legislative maneuver)

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Wirls, Daniel and Wirls, Stephen. The Invention of the U.s. Senate, p. 188 (Taylor & Francis 2004).
2. ^ Gilt, Martin. Senate Procedure and Practice, p. 135 (Rowman & Littlefield 2008).
3. ^ ^{a b} Sargent, Noel. "Bills for Raising Revenue Under the Federal and State Constitutions", Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 330 (1919).
4. ^ Jensen, Erik and Monaghan, Henry. The Taxing Power: a Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 170 (2005). ISBN 0-313-31229-Ten
5. ^ ^{a b} Meigs, William. The Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 110–112 (Lippincott 1900).
6. ^ Farrelly, Marie. "Special Assessments and the Origination Clause: A Tax on Crooks?", Fordham Law Review, Vol. 58, p. 447 (1989).
7. ^ ^{a b} Saturno, James. "The Origination Clause of the U.Southward. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement", CRS Report for Congress (Mar-15-2011).
8. ^ Woodrow Wilson wrote that the Senate has extremely-broad say-so to meliorate appropriations bills, every bit distinguished from bills that levy taxes. Come across Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, pp. 155–156 (Transaction Publishers 2002). Too, according to the Library of Congress, the Constitution is the source of the origination requirement for revenue bills, and tradition is the source of the origination requirement for appropriation bills. See Sullivan, John. "How Our Laws Are Made Archived 2015-10-xvi at the Wayback Motorcar", Library of Congress (accessed August 26, 2013).
9. ^ Naroll, Raoul. Clio and the Constitution: The Influence of the Written report of History on the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 140 (UCLA 1953).
10. ^ ^{a b c} Graham, John. Complimentary, Sovereign, and Independent States: The Intended Meaning of the American Constitution, pp. 238–240 (Pelican Publishing, 2009).
11. ^ Luce, Robert. Legislative Problems: Evolution, Status, And Trend Of The Treatment And Exercise Of Code Powers, p. 417 (Houghton Mifflin 1935, reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange 2005).
12. ^ Watson, David. The Constitution of the United States: its history application and construction, p. 346 (Callaghan 1910).
13. ^ ^{a b c} Medina, J. Michael. The Origination Clause in the American Constitution: A Comparative Survey, Tulsa Constabulary Journal, Vol. 23, p. 165 (1987). Madison also wrote in Federalist No. 45 that "the present Congress take equally complete authorization to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense force and general welfare, every bit the future Congress will accept to require them of individual citizens."
14. ^ Horn, Stephen. Unused Power: The Work of the Senate Commission on Appropriations, p. 249 (Brookings Establishment Press 1970).
15. ^ Vile, John. A Companion to the The states Constitution and Its Amendments, p. 35 (ABC-CLIO, 2010).
16. ^ Nowell, Edwin. A history of the relations betwixt the ii houses of parliament in Tasmania and South Australia: in regard to amendments to bills containing provisions relating to the public revenue or expenditure, pp. 130–131 (Tasmania 1890).
17. ^ Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution (1833).
18. ^ Krotoszynski, Ronald. "Reconsidering the Nondelegation Doctrine: Universal Service, the Ability to Revenue enhancement, and the Ratification Doctrine", Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 80 (2005).
19. ^ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.Due south. 107 (1911).
20. ^ ^{a b} Hubbard five. Lowe, 226 F. 135 (S.D.Due north.Y. 1915), appeal dismissed mem., 242 U.S. 654 (1916).
21. ^ ^{a b} Usa v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.Due south. 385 (1990).
22. ^ Sandefur, Timothy. "So information technology's a Tax, Now What?: Some of the Problems Remaining After NFIB five. Sebelius", Texas Review of Law and Politics, Vol. 17, p. 204 (2013).
23. ^ Kysar, Rebecca. "The 'Shell Bill' Game: Avoidance and the Origination Clause", Washington Academy Police Review, Vol. 91 (2014).
24. ^ Balkin, Jack. "The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for ObamaCare", The Atlantic (September 17, 2012).
25. ^ Barnett, Randy. "New Obamacare Challenge: The Origination Clause", The Volokh Conspiracy (September 13, 2012).
26. ^ Fisher, Daniel. "Obamacare Dissents Poke Holes In Roberts' Reasoning", Forbes (June 29, 2012).
27. ^ Eastman, John. "Hidden Gems in the Historical 2011–2012 Term, and Beyond Archived 2013-12-02 at the Wayback Machine", Charleston Law Review, Vol. 7, p. 19 (2012).
28. ^ Sissel v. DHS (D.C. Cir. 2014). Meet too Hotze v. Burwell (fifth Cir. 2015).
29. ^ Sissel v. DHS , "On Petititon for Rehearing En Banc" (August seven, 2015).

External links [edit]

• "Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1", The Founders' Constitution, Academy of Chicago (2000).
• Zotti, Priscilla and Schmitz, Nicholas. "The Origination Clause: Meaning, Precedent, and Theory from the 12th Century to the 21st Century", British Journal of American Legal Studies, Vol. 3 (Spring 2014).
• Jensen, Erik, "The Origination Clause", The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
• Natelson, Robert. The Founders' Origination Clause (and Implications for the Affordable Care Human activity), The Independence Institute (August 3, 2014), via SSRN.
• Riddick, Floyd. "Acquirement", Senate Procedure, p. 1214 (1992).
• Hinds, Asher. "Prerogatives of the House as to Acquirement Legislation", Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United states, p. 942 (U.S. Government Press Office 1907).
• The Original Significant of the Origination Clause: Hearing earlier the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, 2nd Session, April 29, 2014
• Smyth, Daniel. The Original Public Significant of Amendment in the Origination Clause Versus the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, British Periodical of American Legal Studies, Vol. 6(2), forthcoming.

wraynotheires.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origination_Clause

Share this post