Framers' Views of Origination Clause
The future Vice President Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts insisted, during the Constitutional Convention, on inclusion of the Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution, in order to “restrain the Senatorial branch from originating money bills." James Madison, NOTES ON DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 35-38 (New York, Norton & Co. Inc. 1969) (May 29, 1787). The Senate would be (and still is) less representative and less accountable to the people than members of the House of Representatives are, and thus less restrained by the people against raising new revenue from them.
The notes of James Madison from the Constitutional Convention details the discussions about the Origination Clause, and confirms how important it was to the delegates. Madison observed that it was the view of the Framer George Mason, who was one of the strongest opponents of a powerful new federal government, that prevailed at the Convention in order to limit the power of the Senate:
| “ | The consideration which weighted with the Committee was that the 1st branch would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2nd would not. Should the latter have the power of giving away the peoples money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it. We might soon have an Aristocracy. | ” |
1 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 543 (notes for July 6, 1787) (Yale University Press: 1937) (statement by George Mason).
Multiple delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Elbridge Gerry, John Dickenson and Edmund Randolph, felt that ratification of the new Constitution would be in jeopardy if this essential limitation on the origination of revenue-raising bills were not included.[1] By a vote of 9-2, the appropriate Committee approved the provision that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” with only the small states of Maryland and Delaware in dissent.[2] The additional caveat that the Senate would retain the power to amend was never officially recorded at the Constitutional Convention, an omission that underscores how the power to amend by the Senate should not be allowed to swallow the rule that was passed and recorded.
James Madison became an enthusiastic supporter of the Origination Clause during the ratification process. As Madison wrote in promoting ratification of the Constitution:
| “ | The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government. … This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect, ever just and salutary measure. | ” |
Federalist No. 58.
The people may never have ratified the Constitution if the Origination Clause were not in it, in order to restrain the new federal power from raising revenue without maximum accountability. The Senate – the body of Congress less accountable to the people, both in how often they are elected and in how many people each senator represents – was expressly prevented from originating revenue-raising measures.
The Constitutional Convention expressly rejected such a narrow scope for the Clause, by turning down Edmund Randolph’s proposed language:[3]
| “ | Bills for raising money for the purpose of revenue or for appropriating the same shall originate in the House of Representatives. | ” |