Scalia is a Scoundrel

I found this site which shows the version of HR3590 that was introduced in Sept, 2009. Yes, clearly it originated in the House. But, it's original version was a bill intended

quote:

---

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

---

with the short title of "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009."The Bill was passed by the House and placed on the Senate calendar in Oct. 2009.The Senate then appears to have "amended" the Bill and the amended version is found here (the 7 versions of the bill are available from a drop down menu on the right side of the page). This "amendment" bears no resemblance to the original bill and was intended as a substitution

quote:

---

Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

​

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES--111th Cong., 1st Sess.

​

H. R. 3590

​

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

​

November 19, 2009

​

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

​

Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)

​

Viz:

​

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

​

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

​

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’.

​

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

​

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

​

...

---

I had not heard this claim that the ACA had been initiated in the Senate before, and maybe I don't really understand the significance or legality (or constitutionality) of the issue, but it seems a bit shady to "amend" a Bill by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with something completely different. Also note that the Senate version was dated Nov. 2009 - only a month after it was put on the calendar. The text of the substitution must have been drafted before the bill was even placed on the Senate calendar (the rate government moves it would have taken at least a month just to cut-n-paste the text into the body of the bill). So it does appear that HR3590, as passed DID originate in the Senate, but was hidden or "substituted" for a bill that had originated in the House.I had a similar complaint when the grey wolf was de-listed. The problem was that the rider to remove the wolf from the endangered species list was included (buried) in a budget bill - at a time where passage of the budget was extremely time sensitive, threatening government shut down. Even if there was objections to that rider, it was not going to be addressed because of the urgency of the budget bill. While it may be perfectly legal, it takes advantage of loopholes to push forward an agenda.It seems to me that although it may be "constitutional" it seems rather unethical. Its a shell game.What do you think?HBD