play_arrow
The CRUSADE Radio Network CRUSADE Radio Network
play_arrow
The Mike Church Show-Radio Would Have Thwarted The Trump Assassination Attempt The KingDude
play_arrow
Audio Post Format TheKingDude
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – I’m speaking to you from a legal point of view, not from a political point of view. There are two things to consider here. The first is the political point of view is the public may put pressure on the House of Representin’ to abandon its legal prerogative, and to abandon its legal authority and rights, and to accept what it is the Senate does. I can’t tell you that that’s not going to happen. I can tell you that it shouldn’t happen, but I cannot tell you that it’s not going to happen. What I can tell you is, legally speaking, the United States Senate cannot appropriate a thin dime, not a nickel. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: I’m going to take you back to December the 21st, 1982. U.S. House of Representin’, a representative named Edward Boland, some of you will probably remember that name. You’re probably going: Boland, Boland, I know this. [mocking] “Mike, Mike, I know this, Boland!” Yes, the Boland Amendment. Why aren’t the newscasters and powers that be that make 500 billion times more than AG and I do, why haven’t they been able to find this out? This is easy pickings here. What was the Boland Amendment? Actually, there were two. What were the purposes of the Boland Amendments?
If you’ve ever heard of Iran-Contra, the purpose of the Boland Amendment was to restate the fact of how business gets done in the federal leviathan. The Boland Amendment basically said that the Senate and the Foreign Affairs Committee and money that had been appropriated to the State Department, that the State Department could not spend money in any way, manner, shape or form simply because they claim they have some prerogative to it. They can only spend the money if the funds were raised from revenues. If revenues had to be raised to get the fund, and they did, and then if they had to be appropriated, the appropriate had to originate in the House. Therefore, the Senate could not just say: Hey, we’re going to spend that; we’re overriding the House. They can’t do that. Those that say Harry Reid has a card to play, he doesn’t have a card. Harry Reid is showing up to a poker game empty handed. He may have some chips. He may be able to bluff his way through it, but he does not have a card. Boehner and company have all the cards, all of them.
I’m speaking to you from a legal point of view, not from a political point of view. There are two things to consider here. The first is the political point of view is the public may put pressure on the House of Representin’ to abandon its legal prerogative, and to abandon its legal authority and rights, and to accept what it is the Senate does. I can’t tell you that that’s not going to happen. I can tell you that it shouldn’t happen, but I cannot tell you that it’s not going to happen. What I can tell you is, legally speaking, the United States Senate cannot appropriate a thin dime, not a nickel. As recently as 1982 and 1984 when the Boland Amendments were passed, the point was driven home because the Senate was attempting to do it. Let me rephrase that, the Senate had done it. Members of the House of Representin’ said: How about no? Here we find some info about the Boland Amendments:
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]
[reading]
Introduced by Edward Boland, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the Boland Amendment is actually two pieces of legislation that amend other U.S. laws. The first, passed by the U.S. Congress on December 21, 1982, banned funds from the budget being used by the federal government to aid the contras fighting a civil war against the leftist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
[end reading]
Mike: In other words, when the House passed the Boland Amendment, it said to the Senate and the State Department: You cannot use any of these funds to aid the contras fighting the Sandinistas. We can appropriate funds and send them to you but you can’t. I’m reading here from a blog that I found. It was actually suggested by a friend, or the terms were suggested by a friend. I found many different sources. This one is from an actual lawyer. It’s very concise and succinct. I thought it was good to use this particular source here. It’s posted in today’s Pile of Prep. If you’d like to check my work and my footnotes, you can always go to today’s Pile of Prep and read this for yourself and forward it along, although it’s not as exciting as all the other crap that people forward along and send along through Facebook and Twitter and what have you. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong or incorrect; it just doesn’t fit social media. I think it is a form of encouragement for those that are calling their members of Congress and the United States senators and telling them to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act or every part of it they can locate.
[reading]
Congress was concerned about U.S. entanglements in the many conflicts raging in Central America during this period, particularly the involvement of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and thus passed the amendment to limit the CIA’s input. Known as Boland I, it remained in effect until October 3, 1984, when it was replaced by an even stronger version of the law, known as Boland II. This second amendment prohibited the federal government from supplying any type of aid to the contras, either financial or otherwise. It remained in effect until December 5, 1985. In the Iran-contra scandal of 1985–1987, members of the administration of U.S. president Ronald Reagan were convicted of directly disobeying the Boland Amendment, with many suspecting that the president himself encouraged them to do so.
[end reading]
Mike: Here’s your conclusive proof, if you’re looking for something recent, that only the House can appropriate funds. Those that were convicted in Iran-Contra were basically convicted of commandeering funds the House had not appropriated. What does that say then? That says that Kathleen Sebelius and anyone in the Obama administration, if Congress holds the line and says no, you can’t spend the money, then they can’t spend the money. If they do, then you impeach them or bring them up on trial. Here’s what Boland I summary says:
[reading]
Boland I (1982)
None of the funds provided in this Act may be used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . .
[end reading]
Mike: I’m telling you this because the House of Representin’ can write something exactly like this in their continuing resolution. They can write and say that none of the funds in this act can be used by Health and Inhuman Disservices, by the Office of Executive Legal Counsel, by the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the mandate. In other words, everyone that’s attached to the Affordable Care Act, if the Boehner Congress really wants to do this, it’s the end of the story. Again, this is legal. I’m speaking to you legally, not politically. That doesn’t mean they have the political will to do it. It just means they would be legally correct in doing so or legally empowered to do so. Boland I (1982) said this:
[reading]
None of the funds provided in this Act may be used by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to furnish military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities, to any group or individual, not part of a country’s armed forces, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua or provoking a military exchange between Nicaragua and Honduras.
[end reading]
Mike: You may also say that if Obama were to choose, if President Obama were to team up with Graham and Ayotte and Menendez and Corker and McCain and the rest of them and try to bomb Syria back into the 15th century, the House of Representin’ could choke it off. They could say: We’re appropriating money and we’re telling you that you may not use any of the funds to drop any ordnance anywhere in the country of Syria. You can’t give them a gas mask. You can’t give them a bomb. You can’t even appropriate an MRE to them unless we say so.
[reading]
Boland II (1984)
During fiscal year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
[end reading]
Mike: There you have it. The continuing resolution that was passed by the House, I have not read the resolution. I’ve read stories about it. Lord knows there’s enough posted about it. I don’t know what language they used, if they used this kind of language saying no funds appropriated under this act may be used by Health and Inhuman Disservices, by the IRS or any other agency that’s going to have to implement this monstrosity known as the Affordable Care Act. I wouldn’t tell you this if it weren’t legally correct. This is how this is supposed to work. If the Congress chooses to hold the line on this and not budge on this, there is nothing, nothing Harry Reid can do. There is nothing Dianne Feinstein can do. There is nothing Bob Menendez can do. There is nothing Sharon Brown can do. There is nothing AG’s two senators, Mikulski and — who’s your other senator?
AG: Cardin.
Mike: Ben Cardin, there’s nothing they can do about it. They have no power, none. They can’t appropriate. They cannot raise revenue. This was intended by the framers of the Constitution because they were trying to figure out how they were going to construct the legislative process in the Constitution but still allow the two houses to write their own rules. So the one codicil that made it in from the English parliament and from the experience of the ages was let the spending, the taxing power, the origination power, let it originate as close to the most frequently-elected body that you can. That way there seems to be, theoretically anyways, a corrective measure that can be exerted. In this instance, in our instance, in the American instance, a corrective measure may be exerted every two years.
We all know what’s going to happen today. As a matter of fact, AG, I was reading the rundown last night. I was so confused by all this. Were you confused? On the one hand, if you vote for the CR, you’re voting against Obamacare in the Senate. If you vote against it, then you’re voting — wait, do I have it backwards? If you’re voting against the CR, you’re voting to defund. If you vote for the CR, you’re voting to fund. Is that right?
AG: I thought the big point that Cruz was making was voting for cloture.
Mike: That’s right, the first thing that has to happen is cloture . . . We’re dealing today with the question of whether or not the Senate of Harry Reid can take the House bill that does not have the revenue in it to fund Obamacare and add it back in by amendment. As I have conclusively shown to you and proven today, from the congressional record of 1833, every senator, save from Henry Clay — I’m going to read you Daniel Webster’s smackdown of Henry Clay — every United States senator save for Henry Clay said the Senate cannot do this. We can’t touch anything that has anything to do with revenue. It has to come from the House. If the House sends it over here and they ask us to concur in it, then we can concur in it. This is even better. If we do amend it, then the House has to vote on it again and then send it back to the Senate. Harry Reid’s motion today, and if the vote for cloture happens, which people think that it will, and then if the 51 votes are used to add the money back in to fund the Affordable Care Act, it has to go back to the House, it has to. The House can vote again. AG, what was the final vote on defunding the government on Friday? Do you have the tally?
AG: I can look that up.
Mike: The House can vote on it again and just say no. You can keep this going. The Senate cannot do it. I’ve also conclusively shown to you today that the Senate should — for the caller on the line from Texas, it doesn’t matter, sir. It doesn’t matter if it’s a continuing resolution. It doesn’t matter what the origination point was. If it adds revenue back in, the Senate cannot do it. It has to originate in the House. I’m not going round robin in this discussion, because that would be the third time today that I’ve had to answer this.
Just to recap what we’ve learned today, in the 1980s, the Democrat-controlled Congress was doing battle with the Republican-controlled Senate. The Republican-controlled Senate was trying to fund the Iran-Contra operation. They were telling the CIA they could spend money because the Senate had appropriated it and the Reagan administration could do this. Well, the Congress at that time, led by Tip O’Neil, says: You want to bet? Then they proposed and passed this thing, two acts, Boland Amendment 1982 and Boland Amendment 1984. The Boland Amendment said all the bills that raise revenues originate in this body, and we are telling you you cannot spend any of the money that we appropriate for the Iran-Contra. You can’t spend it for the Sandinistas. You can’t give it to any government on Earth that would spend it for that purpose. No, you can’t do it. There were prosecutions as a result of this, as a result of the Boland Amendment. As recently as 1984, 1985, this was a point of procedure being discussed and debated in the Senate and in the House. I just told you what the Boland Amendment said about that.
Let’s go back to February 1833. I’ve already read to you the debates where every senator said they would not vote to alter the prior act of Congress. This is why Doug in Texas is wrong, because they were voting to alter a prior act of Congress. Call it a continuing resolution, if you like. Every senator to a man said it would violate their honor if they voted to alter a prior act of Congress, even though Henry Clay said: Look, it’s always been appropriated. Every senator to a man, Calhoun, Webster, Smith, Wright, all of them said: No, that violates the spirit of the reason why the separation is in there and why it must originate in the House, and my oath to the Constitution says I can’t do it. They didn’t, and I’m going to prove it to you in a minute, because some of you just won’t believe history as it’s presented to you. You’d like to make it up as you go along. You want it to be true because [mocking] “I saw it on Fox News. It must be true.” Well, it’s not true.
Let’s go back to February 1833. We are now on the day of the debate. Henry Clay has risen to say: No, Doug in Texas is correct. This is a continuing resolution. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. Daniel Webster rises and says: Doug in Texas and the rest of you, that’s incorrect. I read now from the congressional record:
[reading]
“Mr. Webster said the constitutional question must be regarded as important; but it was one which could not be settled by the Senate. It was purely a question of privilege, and the decision of it belonged alone to the House. The Senate, by the constitution, could not originate bills for raising revenue. It was of no consequence whether the rate of duty was increased or decreased, if it was a money bill, it belonged to the House to originate it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways and Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no such committee of the Senate. The constitutional provision was taken from the practice of the British Parliament, whose usages were well known to the framers of the constitution, with the modification that the Senate might alter and amend money bills, which was denied by the House of Commons to that of Lords. This subject belonged exclusively to the House of Representatives. The attempt to evade the question by contending that the present bill was intended for protection and not revenue afforded no relief, for it was protection by means of revenue. It was not the less a money bill from its object being protection. After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would not be raised by existing laws. He was altogether opposed to the provisions of this bill; but this objection was one which it belonged to the House to make.
[end reading]
Mike: We fast forward through a couple days of debate. We will then come to Monday, February 25th. They’re still talking about the same bill.
[reading]
Mr. Clay rose and stated, that inasmuch as it was represented that the House of Representatives had just now passed a bill, similar, if not identical, in its provisions to the one before the Senate, and it was believed it would, to-morrow, be presented to the Senate to sanction, it would obviate the reasons for a longer continuance of a laborious day’s session . . .
[end reading]
Mike: In other words, the House got the message. Only the House can alter the revenue act or the abominable tariff of 1832. The Senate said: No, there’s nothing we can do until they fix the damn bill. Tuesday, February 28:
[reading]
The bill from the House of Representatives to modify the existing tariff was brought into the Senate by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, with a message from the House, requesting the concurrence of the Senate thereto . . . [Mike: Did you hear that? Requesting a concurrence, not an amendment. Don’t touch it, don’t alter it, concur.]
Mr. Clay then observed, that he had no disposition, without the assent of the Senate, to hasten the bill . . . was ordered to lie on the table.
Wednesday, February 27
The bill from the House of Representatives, to modify the act of the 14th of July, and other acts imposing duties on imports, was taken up in Committee of the Whole.
The bill was then reported without amendment, and ordered to be read a third time.
[end reading]
Mike: Then we fast forward to the final resolution of this and we find this from the clerk of the Senate:
[reading]
This bill from the House was the compromise bill of Mr. Clay in the Senate, which, meeting a fatal objection to its origination in the Senate, [Mike: Did you hear that, Doug, fatal objection?] on account of the clause raising revenue, was transferred to the House, to be thence sent to the Senate. Mr. Letcher, of Kentucky, proposed it as an amendment to the tariff bill then depending in the House, reported by Mr. Verplanck of New York; and being adopted became the bill of the House, and as such went back to the Senate for concurrence.
[end reading]
Mike: At every stage of this game, at every stage of this, and at every part of it that I have shared with you, every United States senator, save for Henry Clay, is of the opinion and belief that they cannot even alter a prior bill that raised revenue. They can’t alter it. It had to originate in the House. It was a matter of privilege. In other words, the Constitution gave the privilege for originating these revenue bills to the House of Representin’. The Senate can say: We’ll pass this if you send us a bill that says X. The House can go: Okay, we’ll send you a bill that says XYZ x 22 = 43. If they send a bill over that says XYZ x 22 = 43, the Senate will go: Shazam, kapow! We will give it our concurrence. Then they will put the acts together, send one unified bill to the president for his signature and he signs it.
The House last week voted then 230-189 to send this bill over to the Senate without the funding for the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, the Senate cannot put the funding back in. They can concur. They can propose an amendment to the funding, but since there isn’t any funding, they can’t even do that. They cannot alter the prior act. The prior act required that the bill for raising the revenue originates in the House.
I realize I had to bounce around a little bit to get to this conclusion, but it should be crystal clear as to what the course of action in the Senate should be today. The Senate has two choices as I understand them, as John Calhoun, Daniel Webster, as John Taylor of Caroline as a member of the Senate, as William Grayson, the first senator from the State of Virginia, and as – who are the current senators from Virginia, AG? Do you know?
AG: Kaine and Warner.
Mike: The senators from Virginia should, with full knowledge of their oath of office, say we have two choices in this body. We can either A, vote yes on the House bill and send it back to them and have a conference committee and hammer out a compromise and send it to the president. Or, B, they can vote no. They can say: No, we’re not going to concur. You didn’t have the funding for the Affordable Care Act in here. We’re going to say no. We’re not going to concur with the bill. The Senate cannot, because there is no revenue in the bill for the Affordable Care Act, they can’t add it in. They can’t appropriate. They cannot originate a revenue. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it. As I’ve just proven to you today, not only did I go to the congressional record to make this case today, I also asked the three men whose opinions I respect most about this question in private correspondence. All three of them told me no, the Senate cannot alter that bill. They cannot put the revenue back in.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
[/private]
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – "Abortion, and even contraception, even in the prevention of pregnancy, is verboten in church teaching. This goes all the way back prior – this is taken directly from the gospels, directly from the Old Testament, and then passed on traditionally." Check out today’s transcript […]
Post comments (0)