Question: In which body, that presides over any impeachment of the U.S. president, of the assembly in charge of new issues not mentioned in the Constitution, must revenue bills originate?

<P0-S0> The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is part of Article I of the United States Constitution. <P0-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> <P1-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. <P1-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. <P1-S2> both appropriations and revenue bills are often referred to as money bills to contrast them with authorization bills. <P1-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 ''. <SEP> <P2-S0> The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congress's power to legislate. <P2-S1> Since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congress's power to legislate, it is as broad as Congress's powers to legislate. <P2-S2> However, it is also limited to inquiries that are ``in aid of the legislative function; ''Congress may not`` expose for the sake of exposure.'' <P2-S3> It is uncontroversial that a proper subject of Congress's investigation power is the operations of the federal government, but Congress's ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the President or his subordinates is often - discussed and sometimes controversial (see executive privilege), although not often litigated. <P2-S4> As a practical matter, the limitation of Congress's ability to investigate only for a proper purpose (``in aid of ''its legislative powers) functions as a limit on Congress's ability to investigate the private affairs of individual citizens; matters that simply demand action by another branch of government, without implicating an issue of public policy necessitating legislation by Congress, must be left to those branches due to the doctrine of separation of powers. <P2-S5> The courts are highly deferential to Congress's exercise of its investigation powers, however. <P2-S6> Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate, and the courts have interpreted Congress's regulatory powers broadly since the Great Depression. <P2-S7> Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation. <SEP> <P3-S0> the senate also has a role in ratifying treaties. <P3-S1> the constitution provides that the president may only "make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur" in order to benefit from the senate's advice and consent and give each state an equal vote in the process. <P3-S2> however, not all international agreements are considered treaties under us domestic law, even if they are considered treaties under international law. <P3-S3> congress has passed laws authorizing the president to conclude executive agreements without action by the senate. <P3-S4> similarly, the president may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each house of congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the senate. <P3-S5> neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the constitution, leading some scholars such as laurence tribe and john yoo to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. <P3-S6> however, courts have upheld the validity of such agreements.the constitution empowers the house of representatives to impeach federal officials for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" and empowers the senate to try such impeachments. <P3-S7> if the sitting president of the united states is being tried, the chief justice of the united states presides over the trial. <P3-S8> during an impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. <P3-S9> conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. <P3-S10> a convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office. <P3-S11> no further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. <SEP> <P4-S0> The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. <P4-S1> Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. <P4-S2> After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. <P4-S3> The Constitution requires a two thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached. <P4-S4> 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.