The Bailout: An Extra Constitutional Shnooker

Please see House Rule XIII, (h)(1)- h(2) (House Rules available here to better understand how even their own rules prohibited H.R. 3997 from being considered in the first place, and how, in light of the Bill's title, "Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007....An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief and protections for military personnel, and for other purposes" it is specifically amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ("2008" if it has passed).

Further note the use of "vehicles:"

"This is the House's September 2008 Economic Stimulus Relief Bill. This bill was originally introduced in October 2007 and passed both the House and Senate in December as the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. In September 2008, it was co-opted as the so-called "vehicle" to pass the relief bill with an amendment that rewrites the whole bill. However, the Senate passed its vehicle H.R. 1424 before the House could reach agreement on this bill."

Note further the amendments to the Senate version do amend the income tax laws.

Here is the title of the Dodd amendment that "filled" S. 3197, a senate originating bill, "S.Amdt. 5685: In the nature of a substitute." located at

Note at the above link the detail of Section 302:


(a) Denial of Deduction.--Subsection (m) of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph...."

"(b) Golden Parachute Rule.--Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended...."

....and Section 303:


(a) Extension.--Subparagraph (E) of section 108(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended...."

Under the "Renewable Energy Credit:"


(a) Treatment as Refined Coal.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Subparagraph (A) of section 45(c)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refined coal), as amended by this Act, is amended...."

"(b) Credit Amount.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (8) of section 45(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refined coal production facilities) is amended...."

"(c) Termination.--Paragraph (8) of section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refined coal production facility), as amended by this Act...."


"(d) Coordination With Credit for Producing Fuel From a Nonconventional Source.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Subparagraph (B) of section 45(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended..."

I am sure everyone loves this too:


(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.

(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of study authorized under this section.

(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010."

And of course, in regard to tax amendments and the House Rules when bills suggesting them originate in the house to assure a proper accounting as I referenced at the beginning, please look under the following heading in S.Amdt. 5685, "DIVISION C--TAX EXTENDERS AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF." In fact from that point until you scroll to Section 600 (even the mental health parity is a change to the tax code of ERISA), that entire section is amendments to the income tax law of 1986. All originating in the Senate by this Amendment to the Senate bill "in the nature of a substitute," for all the legal eagles out there they know this phrase and it's "or in the alternative" meaning.

And here is the Revenue provision, the Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution invoked:


Sec..401..Limitation of deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or primary products thereof.

Sec..402..Elimination of the different treatment of foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil related income for purposes of the foreign tax credit.

Sec..403..Broker reporting of customer's basis in securities transactions.

Sec..404..0.2 percent FUTA surtax.

Sec..405..Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax."

Remember, that once this passed the Senate it is "S. 3197" meaning it is no longer originating in the house. This is due to the Dodd Amendment not being the bill presented to the House but an amended version now originating in the Senate, thus the new number, and the reason it is packaged as "the Dodd amendment" to S. 3197, which was an entirely different Senate originating bill previously, "S. 3197: National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008," though if you go there now (October 03, 2008) it says the page is about to change and that the information in the database is obsolete.

[IMPORTANT UPDATE REGARDING THE GOVTRACK LINK IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: after a number of discussions with the people at govtrack, 1st, the govtrack link in the following paragraph has disappeared, 2nd, it appears the reason why is "the bank bailouts had a tortured legislative history," and thus, it appears the info at the link must have been inaccurate, which is a pity since such a record of how this transpired illustrated well how this unconstitutional $700 billion Bank Bailout was done. What I've noted in this article, as to the shenanigans done to pass the bank bailouts, remains accurate. However, the illustrative detail of this situation is now unavailable, and the actual vote on the act, according to other sources was the following day, and I have been informed the September 28, 2008 date is wrong. Thus, here is the September 29, 2008 debate over the Federal Financial Rescue Bill (TARP), yet mentioning the House rejection of the Bank Bailout along the bottom as it progresses, And further, I must note, that a writer at the Huffington Post seems to have a crystal ball, posting a September 28 article about a failed bank bailout vote that happened on the 29th, The whole thing is indeed becoming curious.]

This is important because if you go to this link and then select the bottom link,"# Comparison 4 between: the text of the plan as of September 28 at 9:10pm, which failed the House vote on Monday, September 30 (an amendment to set the text of H.R. 3997) (AMEND001, PDF), and the text of the bill H.R. 1424 approved by the Senate the night of Wednesday, October 1 (AYO08C32, PDF)" and then do a search of AYO08C32.PDF for the word "Revenue" you'll find it isn't there, yet the one that failed the house AMEND001 has revenue provisions in it, meaning the revenue provisions originating in the House failed, and the revenue provisions of the "Dodd Amendment" are originating in the Senate, a clear violation of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution:

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:

"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."

The Senate Amendment is to a Senate Bill and not to the House bill nor containing the provisions of the House bill alone but include provisions for "Raising the Revenue," which weren't in the original House bill that failed, and also includes Amendments to the Income Tax Act of 1986 which, prior to the House voting on any bill with any such provisions must meet the requirement of the House Rules XIII (h) (1) and (h) (2). I have yet to see any such reports produced from the original act, and no such requirement pursuant to the House Rules would apply to Senate determinations and amendments to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and this to me is the big deal about this whole "rescue."

So it appears there is no way this bailout approved today could pass legal muster if it were challenged. the trouble is that I doubt any bank or other Wall Street institution will complain, nor will anyone else receiving benefits from this bill, obviously that's why the 350 pages of "sweeteners." Paulson won't be complaining, nor the President, and I can't see where any citizen could have a cause of action, though there may be something due to laws which allow us to petition for an Order to Show Cause where we feel the money spent will be wasted by the government. I know this law exists in the State of California but am not sure if there is a similar federal act.

Just some things I found in a cursory review of the Bill and in reviewing the House Rules, I mean, at least we know they intended to shaft us now, it wasn't an accident. No wonder the democrats wanted the republicans to vote for it also, as that assures a level of cover so neither could have used the right vote, the vote of the American People to vote no, on this bill to gain control of the legislative branch at the next election, though it probably doesn't matter since the "bipartisan" effort appears to be to see how stupid we really are.

Government operating for us doesn't mean it passes things we don't complain about, but means it operates as intended by the Founders. Anything less is settlement and we get what we deserve.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman
printer friendly LAN_NEWS_24

You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup