Question: Which governing body that presides over presidential impeachment trials of the branch of government that has power to establish uniform rule of naturalization must revenue bills originate?

<P0-S0> similar to the british system, article one of the united states constitution gives the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment and the senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the u.s. national government. <P0-S1> (various state constitutions include similar measures, allowing the state legislature to impeach the governor or other officials of the state government.) <P0-S2> in contrast to the british system, in the united states impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction during the second stage requires a two - thirds majority vote. <P0-S3> impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. <P0-S4> an official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. <P0-S5> most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. <P0-S6> although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he or she was removed. <P0-S7> impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment. <SEP> <P1-S0> The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is part of Article I of the United States Constitution. <P1-S1> This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills. <SEP> <P2-S0> The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. <P2-S1> The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. <P2-S2> Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. <P2-S3> After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. <P2-S4> The Constitution requires a two thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached. <SEP> <P3-S0> The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with the most recent changes to the law having been made by Congress in 2001. <P3-S1> The United States nationality law is a uniform rule of naturalization of the United States set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, enacted under the power of Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution (also referred to as the Nationality Clause), which reads: Congress shall have Power - ``To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization... ''The 1952 Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, American nationality. <SEP> <P4-S0> while the united states of america is not a parliamentary democracy, the origination clause of the u.s. constitution requires that all bills raising revenue originate in the house of representatives, consistent with british constitutional practice; by convention, appropriation bills (bills that spend money) also originate in the house. <P4-S1> unlike in most westminster systems, there are no limits on the senate's ability to amend revenue bills or any requirement for the senate to approve such bills within a certain timeframe. <P4-S2> both appropriations and revenue bills are often referred to as money bills to contrast them with authorization bills. <P4-S3> the u.s. supreme court in united states v. munoz - flores (1990) held that: ``a law passed in violation of the origination clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both houses and signed by the president than would be a law passed in violation of the first amendment ''.