Senate Immigration Bill Unconstitutional?

Newly appointed Fox News Congressional correspondent Major Garrett concluded his segment on Special Report today with an interesting tidbit: Some on Capitol Hill are suggesting that the Senate immigration bill, in its current form, is unconstitutional.

The Constitution mandates that all bills regarding the raising of revenue must originate in the House. The Senate, in proposing that illegal aliens pay (only) three years' back taxes as part of a legalization program, may have improperly invaded legislative territory that belongs to the House.

I'd be most interested to know if this kind of circumstance has arisen in Congress in the past, and how it was handled.

I'll be watching for further developments on this angle.

Friday Update: The Washington Times has an article today on the Constitutional issue which has been raised. The immigration bill will possibly be returned to the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has brushed the problem off and refused Majority Leader Frist's suggestion for a fix; Reid's "office said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans are 'technical in nature' and can be ignored."

Nice to know our Senate Minority Leader finds the Constitution to be a mere technicality that can be ignored at will.

Further Update: Power Line on Harry Reid: "As we suspected, John McCain isn't the only Senator who views the Constitution as optional."

Rush Limbaugh asks how so many senators could have been so oblivious to the issue that the Senate cannot initiate federal tax policy. Or did they know it all along?

It's also rather interesting that, as far as I'm aware, those in the media who specialize in Congressional coverage seem to have missed this as a potential problem, prior to Major Garrett breaking the story Thursday on Fox News Channel.