{"id":199,"date":"2013-02-21T11:55:10","date_gmt":"2013-02-21T16:55:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/?p=199"},"modified":"2013-02-24T17:32:52","modified_gmt":"2013-02-24T22:32:52","slug":"spoiler-alert-the-senate-sequestration-bill-wont-become-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/spoiler-alert-the-senate-sequestration-bill-wont-become-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Spoiler Alert: The Senate Sequestration Bill Won\u2019t Become Law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Boehner<\/a>

Speak\u00ader of the House John Boehn\u00ader, with Reps. Martha Roby, R\u2011Ala., and Cathy McMor\u00adris Rodgers, R\u2011Wash., talk about the sequester on Feb. 13.
Pho\u00adto by Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n

The polit\u00adi\u00adcal war of words over $85 bil\u00adlion in auto\u00admat\u00adic spend\u00ading cuts set to take effect March 1 will next evolve into a leg\u00adisla\u00adtive bat\u00adtle in the Sen\u00adate. The result of that bat\u00adtle is uncer\u00adtain. The final out\u00adcome is not: whether or not the Sen\u00adate man\u00adages to pass the mea\u00adsure, it will not become law. It will not because it cannot.<\/p>\n

Although the bill won\u2019t actu\u00adal\u00adly be intro\u00adduced until next Mon\u00adday or Tues\u00adday, it is expect\u00aded to replace the across-the-board spend\u00ading cuts with a mix\u00adture of spec\u00adi\u00adfied cuts and tax increas\u00ades. And there\u00adin lies its undoing.<\/p>\n

Arti\u00adcle I, Sec\u00adtion 7, Clause 1 of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion pro\u00advides that: \u201cAll Bills for rais\u00ading Rev\u00adenue shall orig\u00adi\u00adnate in the House of Rep\u00adre\u00adsen\u00adta\u00adtives.\u201d A Sen\u00adate-orig\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded bill that rais\u00ades tax\u00ades is there\u00adfore uncon\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal on its face.<\/p>\n

The Con\u00adgres\u00adsion\u00adal Research Ser\u00advice has exam\u00adined the top\u00adic of Sen\u00adate-orig\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded tax bills<\/a> at some length. Its upshot is suc\u00adcinct and unambiguous:<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>As gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly under\u00adstood in both the House and Sen\u00adate, this clause car\u00adries two kinds of<\/p>\n

pro\u00adhi\u00adbi\u00adtions. First, the Sen\u00adate may not orig\u00adi\u00adnate any mea\u00adsure that includes a pro\u00advi\u00adsion for raising<\/p>\n

rev\u00adenue, and sec\u00adond, the Sen\u00adate may not pro\u00adpose any amend\u00adment that would raise rev\u00adenue to a<\/p>\n

non-rev\u00adenue mea\u00adsure\u201d (CRS<\/span>, p. 1).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Under House rules, it is not even in order for the body to con\u00adsid\u00ader a Sen\u00adate-passed rev\u00adenue bill. They are typ\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly ignored, buried in com\u00admit\u00adtee, or \u201cblue-slipped,\u201d returned to the Sen\u00adate with a res\u00ado\u00adlu\u00adtion print\u00aded on blue paper indi\u00adcat\u00ading that the House will not waste its pre\u00adcious time debat\u00ading an uncon\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal bill.<\/p>\n

But if the House were to adopt a Sen\u00adate-passed rev\u00adenue mea\u00adsure and the Pres\u00adi\u00addent were to sign it, the Supreme Court would strike it down, accord\u00ading to CRS<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>As with oth\u00ader pro\u00advi\u00adsions of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion, if the Court were to find that a rev\u00adenue bill had been passed in vio\u00adla\u00adtion of the Orig\u00adi\u00adna\u00adtion Clause, the con\u00adse\u00adquence would be for the statute or pro\u00advi\u00adsion to be held invalid\u201d<\/p>\n

(CRS<\/span>, p. 10).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The deter\u00admin\u00ading fac\u00adtor for the Court has gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly been the \u201cenrolled bill doc\u00adtrine.\u201d The basis of that doc\u00adtrine has to do with how \u201cenrolled bills\u201d \u2013 those that pass the House and Sen\u00adate, are enrolled by Con\u00adgres\u00adsion\u00adal clerks and sent to the Pres\u00adi\u00addent for sig\u00adna\u00adture \u2013 are des\u00adig\u00adnat\u00aded. Enrolled bills that orig\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded in the Sen\u00adate have an \u201cS\u201d bill num\u00adber (e.g., S. 345); those that orig\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded in the House bear an \u201cHR<\/span>\u201d bill num\u00adber (e.g., H.R. 123). The Court\u2019s gen\u00ader\u00adal rule is that if an enrolled bill that rais\u00ades rev\u00adenues has an \u201cS\u201d bill num\u00adber, it is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth not\u00ading here that this is not the usu\u00adal Repub\u00adli\u00adcan House vs. Demo\u00adc\u00adra\u00adt\u00adic Sen\u00adate melee that we\u2019ve grown accus\u00adtomed to over the past cou\u00adple of years. This is a mat\u00adter of con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal and insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal sig\u00adnif\u00adi\u00adcance that tran\u00adscends par\u00adty dif\u00adfer\u00adences and that the courts take very seri\u00adous\u00adly. It hap\u00adpens that in this case it will be the Repub\u00adli\u00adcan House rebuff\u00ading a tax bill from a Demo\u00adc\u00adra\u00adt\u00adic Sen\u00adate. If par\u00adty con\u00adtrols were reversed, the result would be quite the same.<\/p>\n

Next week promis\u00ades to be chock full of Wash\u00ading\u00adton pyrotech\u00adnics. On Mon\u00adday or Tues\u00adday, Sen\u00ada\u00adtor Reid will intro\u00adduce his bill to elim\u00adi\u00adnate the sequester. Spec\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtion will abound. Will some Repub\u00adli\u00adcans, spooked by adverse pub\u00adlic reac\u00adtion to the spend\u00ading cuts, back the bill? Will cer\u00adtain mod\u00ader\u00adate Democ\u00adrats, whose con\u00adstituen\u00adcies would be harmed by the measure\u2019s tax pro\u00advi\u00adsions, oppose it? Will Repub\u00adli\u00adcans fil\u00adi\u00adbuster it? Should it pass the Sen\u00adate, there will be calls for the House to pass it as well.<\/p>\n

That won\u2019t hap\u00adpen because tax bills have to orig\u00adi\u00adnate in the House.<\/p>\n

So why is the Sen\u00adate doing this? The first ques\u00adtion is, \u201cWhy now?\u201d Con\u00adgress has known since Jan\u00adu\u00adary 1 that the sequester was going to hap\u00adpen on March 1. If these cuts are as dev\u00adas\u00adtat\u00ading to the econ\u00ado\u00admy, pub\u00adlic health and safe\u00adty and the gen\u00ader\u00adal well-being of the coun\u00adtry as the Pres\u00adi\u00addent now claims, then why is the Sen\u00adate wait\u00ading until 3 or 4 days before they take effect to intro\u00adduce a bill?<\/p>\n

The answer is that this is large\u00adly a polit\u00adi\u00adcal exer\u00adcise. Despite the ris\u00ading furor over seques\u00adtra\u00adtion, it appears that Democ\u00adrats and Repub\u00adli\u00adcans have decid\u00aded to let it hap\u00adpen. Nei\u00adther the Pres\u00adi\u00addent nor Con\u00adgres\u00adsion\u00adal lead\u00aders of either par\u00adty has shown the remotest inter\u00adest in nego\u00adti\u00adat\u00ading over a res\u00ado\u00adlu\u00adtion. Instead, each par\u00adty blames the oth\u00ader for what\u00adev\u00ader dam\u00adage seques\u00adtra\u00adtion might do. Repub\u00adli\u00adcans note that the Pres\u00adi\u00addent called for includ\u00ading seques\u00adtra\u00adtion in the August 2011 debt ceil\u00ading bill, as a fall\u00adback should the so-called \u201csuper-com\u00admit\u00adtee\u201d fail to reach con\u00adsen\u00adsus on a broad deficit reduc\u00adtion pack\u00adage. Democ\u00adrats blame the GOP<\/span>-con\u00adtrolled House for refus\u00ading to move a bill that would head off the auto\u00admat\u00adic cuts.<\/p>\n

For now, Repub\u00adli\u00adcans are firm in their deter\u00admi\u00adna\u00adtion to let the cuts take effect, believ\u00ading that spend\u00ading cuts, how\u00adev\u00ader arbi\u00adtrary, are prefer\u00adable to a sec\u00adond tax hike in two months. Democ\u00adrats are more than hap\u00adpy to go along because they believe that their oppo\u00adnents will capit\u00adu\u00adlate after absorb\u00ading anoth\u00ader pub\u00adlic rela\u00adtions beat\u00ading by the President.<\/p>\n

It all makes for good the\u00adater. But we know this for sure: the movie won\u2019t end with the House pass\u00ading a Sen\u00adate-orig\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded tax bill.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The polit\u00adi\u00adcal war of words over $85 bil\u00adlion in auto\u00admat\u00adic spend\u00ading cuts set to take effect March 1 will next evolve into a leg\u00adisla\u00adtive bat\u00adtle in the Sen\u00adate. The result of that bat\u00adtle is uncer\u00adtain. The final out\u00adcome is not: \u2026 Con\u00adtin\u00adue read\u00ading \u2192<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":203,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"nfd_image_url":"","nfd_onboarding_generated":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sequestration"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t