4 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
I may be a bit behind the times, but I have a question about the "ban crypto-anarchy" legislation as well as the Exon amendment: Isn't legislation in this country supposed to start in the House and _then_ move to the Senate for approval? Why are all of these bills going in the opposite direction? Phil
On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Phil Fraering wrote: > I may be a bit behind the times, but I have a question > about the "ban crypto-anarchy" legislation as well as > the Exon amendment: > > Isn't legislation in this country supposed to start in the > House and _then_ move to the Senate for approval? Only ones that involve money. The House was given the Power of the Purse by the original Constitutional Congress. Ben. ____ Ben Samman..............................................samman@cs.yale.edu I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.-- K. Gibran. SUPPORT THE PHIL ZIMMERMANN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND! For information Email: zldf@clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Perry E. Metzger writes:
> BTW, in re suing congressmen
>
> "The Senators and Representatives shall [...] in all cases, except
> treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest
> during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and
> in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate
> in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
>
> The last part being operative.
Article VI
Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judicial Officers, both shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.
Does any mechanism exist for removing Oath-breakers from office? Any
member of Congress who proposes or votes for (as distinguished from
"speech or debate") unconstitutional legislation has clearly violated
their Oath, and hence are no longer legitimate holders of the office.
Would someone who refused to be "bound by Oath or Affirmation" be
allowed to take a seat in the Congress? If not, why should an
Oath-breaker be allowed to?
Yes, I know, they'll do whatever the hell they want.
Regards,
Patrick May
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMAa4BO5Yg08fDKehAQGOQgQAjBP3g5LZY6YE/8IHsG/PXFlyE4PNYRaP
cIZ+y9MKWPP81kQPqGggnrDl6DcllWQmNW+cNrcOXraJnLutUlXDEnY6s3TXP34h
5L8oFzUNJSBl3GqKHxXOMMVdDXUeB8afUxbmCHrCQjq5QLSux4uIGBRd44VfVW4C
dxoBmom+FQU=
=kfH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Phil Fraering writes: > I may be a bit behind the times, but I have a question > about the "ban crypto-anarchy" legislation as well as > the Exon amendment: > > Isn't legislation in this country supposed to start in the > House and _then_ move to the Senate for approval? > > Why are all of these bills going in the opposite direction? Legislation can originate in either house. The constitution says only that "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." This particular rule is often breeched in reality, by the way, but there is no enforcement mechanism to stop it. BTW, in re suing congressmen "The Senators and Representatives shall [...] in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The last part being operative. .pm