Jonathan notes that the health care bill includes certain “entrenchment” provisions, and asks, “can the current Senate bind future Senates in this way?” If I understand the bill correctly, it creates an independent board that recommends ways to limit Medicare payments. These recommendations go to the president, who in turn is supposed to submit them to Congress. Congressional procedures are likewise constrained. The Senate, for example, cannot debate the proposal for more than 30 hours; there are limits on House procedures as well. The idea seems to be to constrain filibustering and other parliamentary maneuvers that would defeat cost-saving legislation in the future. As Jonathan notes, the bill further provides that these constraints cannot be overturned by majority rule but require a 2/3 supermajority.
Can Congress bind itself in this way? As it happens, I have written a paper on this topic (with Adrian Vermeule). The short answer is “no,” or at least, no one thinks that Congress can bind itself in this way. (For some Supreme Court dicta, see U.S. v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839, 872 (1996)). A Congress at time 1 can pass all the entrenchment provisions it wants, but Congress at time 2 can repeal them by majority rule, rendering the entrenchment provision nugatory ex ante.
Academics have spent a lot of time justifying the restriction on entrenchment, but, our paper argues, have failed. Some scholars make conceptual arguments: Congress can’t bind future Congresses to supermajority rules if every Congress rules by majority. But these conceptual arguments are clearly wrong, as Article V of the Constitution shows (and, indeed, the Senate’s own internally enforced supermajority rules). It is certainly possible to entrench policy; the question is whether courts or other relevant agents will respect the rules. Most scholars seem to fear that if Congress can entrench legislation, then it will resolve all questions today that might come up in the future, depriving future generations of their right to self-government.
The problem with this argument is that Congress can already bind the future in uncontroversial ways. It borrows money, compelling the future to repay or suffer a loss of credit. It starts wars, compelling the future to finish them. Everything Congress does affects future generations, for good or for ill. Imposing restrictions on its own procedures is not really distinctive. If you think Congress should be able to do anything at all, then you are probably compelled to conclude that it ought to bind itself. In this instance, part of the health care deal is a commitment by Congress to restrain growth in Medicare spending. Since people don’t believe that Congress will actually control Medicare spending if normal parliamentary procedures are used, the Senate is trying to entrench this commitment. Unfortunately, it will fail—at least, if it depends on the courts to enforce these rules. It is possible that the rules will create a political entrenchment of some sort, but it is hard to tell.
Commentor says:
Should a majority pass be able to pass an entrenchment provision requiring a super-majority to repeal?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:16 pmAndrew says:
The real issue here is not whether a future Congress can change the rules all it wants. Of course it can.
The real issue here is therefore not a constitutional issue, but rather an issue under the Senate rules. The Senate rules say that sixty-six (66) Senators are needed for cloture on a rule change (to shut off debate and proceed to a vote on the merits), but only sixty (60) Senators are needed for cloture on a statute.
So, the question is: if a statute purports to change the rules, does cloture require 60 votes or 66 votes? That’s the real issue here.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:24 pmGeorge Hooker says:
The problem I see with your argument is that while a previous Congress can bind a new Congress in the sense that it must continue the war, pay the debt, etc. it does not prevent that Congress from remedying the problem.
For example yes a new Congress would have to deal with a war that a previous Congress started, but it would be allowed to withdraw troops or otherwise bring the war to a conclusion. However, if a previous Congress is forced to abide by a super-majority requirement imposed by a previous Congress then it would be unable to make its own policy choices or attempt to remedy problems created by the previous Congress. I would assume that you don’t believe that a Congress could pass a bill and then require a unanimous vote to ever repeal it?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:29 pmMark N. says:
The linked article’s dismissal of the analogy-to-Constitutional-amendments argument (Section I.D.3.) isn’t entirely convincing to me. Yes, it’s true that, as the article argues, Constitutional amendments can expand government power, and override conflicting independent provisions, neither of which entrenched legislation can do.
But many amendments, particularly in the Bill of Rights, have precisely the form of entrenchment: the First Amendment simply restricts what kinds of legislation future Congresses may pass, by entrenching a provision that “Congress shall make no law” that meets certain criteria. Is the article really arguing that the First Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights, perhaps) could’ve been passed as a piece of ordinary but entrenched legislation, and that passing it that way would have (or ought to have had) the same effect?
The argument that Congress can already bind future Congresses by e.g. incurring debt, or starting wars, doesn’t seem dispositive to me either. Of course Congress can change facts in the real world, and the state of the world as they find it indirectly binds future Congresses, insofar as governance takes place in the real world (or ought to). But I don’t think that automatically means that Congress can directly bind future Congresses; that’s a strange camel’s nose sort of argument.
On a more historical note, it seems that one motivating factor in pre-U.S. days was to keep the King from being able to bribe or coerce one Parliament into restricting the powers of future Parliaments.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:30 pmKen Braithwaite says:
Aside from the general principle, which Posner oddly rejects,
don’t we run into article 1 sec 5 on this specific issue?
I say oddly as what if congress passed a law forbidding future congresses to vote on anything?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:32 pmJM Hanes says:
“The problem with this argument is that Congress can already bind the future in uncontroversial ways.”
Doesn’t this actually misstate the problem? Law, by definition, is intended to bind “the future.” The question is whether one legislature can deny majority rule to a future legislature. Even House and Senate procedural rules are regularly revisited, i.e. they do not automatically survive from one session of Congress to the next. As you, yourself, note, when Congress borrows money, future legislators can default, although the consequences certainly weigh against doing so.
The most compelling example of future binding would seem to arise in the case of international treaties, in which a Senate vote essentially creates supra-constitutional commitments. This has always struck as one of the most problematic constitutional provisions, now more than ever, as the pressure toward conforming to international “law” and jurisprudence increases.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:45 pmlgm says:
Nevertheless, a law calling for a super-majority for certain decisions (technical ones in this case) can serve an important function. There might be a narrow majority against one specific recommendation but not a majority against the super-majority system in general.
It’s sort of like our bill of rights. There may be majorities big enough to repeal one of them (the second being my favorite to eliminate), but people respect the body of the first ten amendments too much to tamper even with the ones they think are mistakes.
Paygo is a recent practical example. The law enforced congressional budget discipline for years. But it in end it was repealed by a simple (Republican) majority vote.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 2:54 pmChris Travers says:
lgm:
Sure it can serve an important interest, which is probably why it is used in this case.
The question though is whether that means is of mere persuasive power or whether it has teeth.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:01 pmGuest12345 says:
Given that Congress can apparently write legislation that undoes historical events[1], it seems unlikely that a current Congress can even pretend to bind a future Congress.
1 — For example, the Saxby/Clinton “Fix”.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:13 pmBlackadder says:
Andrew is right. The provision constitutes a rules change, which requires a 2/3 majority for cloture. Hopefully someone will notice this prior to final passage.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:28 pmOff Kilter says:
“I say oddly as what if congress passed a law forbidding future congresses to vote on anything?”
They would be venerated as the saviors of the Republic...?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:29 pmChris Travers says:
Guest12345:
I disagree. They can pretend all they want.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:32 pmADF Alliance Alert » Entrenchment Provisions in the Health Care Bill are Probably Unconstitutional says:
[...] Sir. William Blackstone cited in the paper linked below. Eric Posner writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “Jonathan notes that the health care bill includes certain ‘entrenchment’ [...]
Jeff says:
What if Congress were to, for example, give the IRS the power to recommend new income tax rates, and if Congress did not disapprove those by a specified super majority (like 3/5), those new tax rates would become effective?
This is very similar to the LIV that has been ruled unconstitutional as well. As a agency of the Executive has the ability to modify appropriations, and the only way Congress can override is with a super-majority.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:54 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Andrew has made an important point: given these provisions, was the cloture motion that just ‘passed’ actually a ‘fail’?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 4:04 pmProf. S. says:
If it’s just rules and they can make any rules that they want, could they put a rule in the statute that said:
“Before the Senate may vote to approve any bill, amendment or resolution modifying this statute, 101 senators must vote in favor of ending debate.”
At some point, if you control procedure, you can control everything.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 4:25 pmCyrus says:
PersonFromPorlock:
The Senate’s presiding officer, under questioning from Sen. Demint, ruled that the provision to change the rule was a change in “procedure” instead:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
That distinction sounds implausible to me, but I don’t know the Senate’s rules.
I think any Senate that tried to undo the new rule/procedure without a 2/3 vote would violate the Senate’s rules (not any law), but the majority party probably could get away with such a violation. If the Republicans had any way to force a 2/3 vote for cloture, I see no reason why they wouldn’t have.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 4:26 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
With the Republicans, simple incompetence is always possible.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 4:40 pmCyrus says:
Incompetence is always a possibility, but DeMint obviously is aware of the issue. I’m not familiar with the Senate’s rules, but I suspect that DeMint and the Republicans know that the parliamentarian would rule against them and that they don’t have the votes to overturn the parliamentarian’s ruling.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 4:48 pmrequired says:
Mark N:
What you are missing is that while a constitution can bind the legislature (US rule) in ordinary legislation it cannot prevent a future constitutional change. The 1st amendment is a poor example, it clearly applies only to Congress passing laws, but the 2nd amendment does not have a specific limit on the actor, are we thus to consider that the only way to get rid of the right to bear arms is to overthrow the government entirely instead of merely holding a constitutional convention?
The only constitutional restriction on future constitutional amendment writers is the limitation on the ability to amend the constitution with regards to senate representation — is the 17th Amendment actually legal since it moves the senators’ selection from the legislatures to the people? But that’s neither here nor there, and long ago it was reasoned that the peoples of the states were the actual sovereigns and the 17th amendment merely changed how the senators were selected without affecting their proportional by state voting power in the senate.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 5:00 pmA. Zarkov says:
While it’s true that any legislature inherits baggage from prior legislatures, and must deal with it, that’s a far cry from getting handcuffed. What makes one legislature so wise it can’t get corrected? I also think analogies with the constitutional amendments are defective. Amendments are not legislation, and they can get nullified by the same process. Here the Democrats are trying to change the rules with less than a 2/3 vote and then require a 2/3 vote in the future to change them back. The Democrats are seeking a kind of legislative putsch. They are over reaching sowing tremendous discord. If they keep this up they will provoke a future insurrection.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 5:33 pmDave says:
This seems simple enough. If Congress feels strongly enough about the fiscal solvency of this proposal this that it wants to bind future legislatures to it, then it merely needs to submit a constitutional amendment to the various state legislatures saying so. Any of the various balanced budget amendments that have been floated will do nicely. If, on the other hand, they wish to seem to be committed to fiscal solvency while actually doing nothing to insure it, they should do exactly what they’ve done in this bill.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 6:24 pmJM Hanes says:
Jeff:
Congress routinely passes largely “conceptual” legislation, for which bureaucrats will detail the enabling, legally binding, regulations — i.e. effectively making law. In the Stimulus Package, the Cap and Trade bill, and in Healthcare legislation, Congress grants extraordinary rule making authorities to Cabinet Secretaries and Executive Branch agencies. It gives the term “shadow government” new meaning.
That’s why the Democrats will gut their own bill to get it passed. All they really need to do is to set up the basic infrastructure upon which a regulatory edifice can be built incrementally after passage. That’s one of Henry Waxman’s special skills.
Taxes originating in the Executive branch would likely be a special case. It seems to me that one of the central questions here, though, is whether so called “fines” constitute a discrete, permissible, form of taking — perhaps even because they don’t automatically apply across the board, but rather in response to individual lapses?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 7:31 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Entrenchment Provisions in the Health Care Bill -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Meredith Turney, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Entrenchment Provisions in the Health Care Bill: Jonathan notes that the health care bill includes certain “ent.. http://bit.ly/8PJlim [...]
Allan Walstad says:
Of course it is. “Affect” is not the same thing as “direct.” Today’s pols can run up a huge debt, but they can’t force future pols to pay it off. Options include 1. simple reneging, and 2. devaluing the dollar. Today’s pols can send troops to Afghanistan, but they can’t force future pols to keep the troops there. Etc. The really weird thing is how today’s federal pols, who have zero respect for the Constitution’s limits on their own powers, want future pols to respect their injunctions against them.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 8:47 pmDavid Sanger says:
The supermajority required by California’s 1976 Proposition 13 for school districts to approve bond measures has long been irksome to many who resent a previous generation thinking that “it knew better.”
As Prof. S. suggests, what is the logical difference between a legislature requiring a supermajority to change a law, and requiring an 80% or unanimous vote, or even stating that “no future Congress can ever amend or repeal any portion of this legislation”?
Quote
December 22, 2009, 11:45 pmDesiderius says:
Allan,
“The really weird thing is how today’s federal pols, who have zero respect for the Constitution’s limits on their own powers, want future pols to respect their injunctions against them.”
What’s weird about it? Why should they have more respect for the future than the past?
My guess is that its the political manifestation of the cultural erosion of ties between generations that has been much noted over the past half-century. The argument has been made that said erosion was inaugurated by the implementation of Social “Security”. Perhaps fertile ground for EV’s quest for the intersection of Libertarian and Communitarian values.
Quote
December 23, 2009, 12:01 amMichael F. Cannon says:
What about the disparate treatment of the House and Senate in the Senate bill?
The Senate gets to waive the prohibition on changes to the rationing board with a 3/5 majority. But there’s no opportunity for the House to waive it.
Quote
December 23, 2009, 10:13 amBob Smith says:
Proposition 13 was a constitutional amendment, not a statute. That’s why it was binding on future California legislatures.
The logical difference is that the supermajority rule isn’t a statute, it’s a rule of order. Congress can’t bind itself by statute. The argument that this bill is a change of procedure, not a change of rule, is absurd. Isn’t the procedure itself defined by a rule? If not, how is the procedure defined? How can you change the procedure prescribed by a rule without that being an implicit change of the rule?
I would further argue that since we are not playing Nomic, we can’t create rules that can’t be amended.
Quote
December 23, 2009, 11:53 amRetro Active says:
I agree with the general proposition that one legislative body cannot prevent, or at least should not be allowed to prevent, a future legislative body from altering the rules it adopts, but there are limitations. Property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause are one example. If the 110th Congress votes to convey Blackacre to X, the 111th can repeal that grant, but not without indemnifying X — it is legally obligated by the 110th. Something similar might be said about the prohibition on ex post facto laws: a future Congress cannot revisit the decision of a prior Congress not to have criminalized certain conduct.
Quote
December 23, 2009, 4:49 pmFT.com | Clive Crook's blog | Further reading says:
[...] Can Congress tie its own hands? Eric Posner, Volokh Conspiracy. (Via Marginal Revolution) [...]
Dilip says:
We know that at least Justice Scalia believes that Congress has no such power to bind a future legislature. See his lone concurrence in Lockart v. US (2005) where he says so explicitly.
Quote
December 23, 2009, 8:21 pmDavid Sanger says:
Bob Smith :: the logical difference I referred was not in relation to the California prop 13 issue, just Congress
Simply, if Congress can require a 60% vote for future changes to legislation, then why not 61%, 62%, 63%, 99% or 100%. Whatever the justification, at what threshold would it cease to be valid?
And is there a difference between requiring a specific supermajority and stating that legislation could never, ever be changed?
Quote
December 23, 2009, 9:18 pmPaul DeReno says:
Quite frankly, Posner’s arguments for etrenchment are farcical.
First, the Constitution is an entrenched law by its very nature, since it provides the basic foundational rules for making laws. Posner, if he is to be taken seriously, now claims that the only formal difference between the Constitution and subsequent legislation, regardless of how trivial (our cabbage regulations, for instance), is that the Constitution came first; so that any congressional majority can by virtue of mere temporal priority handcuff future majorities (even if they are larger!) in the same way that the Constitution does.
The Constitution is a social contract that is binding through the generations. It is the stuff we put in history textbooks so that children develop reverence for it. It is part of the national fabric. To say that any old law can rise to that status is laughable. But even then, the Constitution in and of itself would be ineffective if it were not held in some form of esteem by the public. It is, like any law, just a bit of ink spilled on paper. It is the Constitution’s effectiveness over the generations that entitles it to its supreme position in the legal canon. And it is through that supremacy that the provisions of entrenchment it contains are binding. If the Constitution were grossly misconceived, (for instance, if it were made impossible to amend) all of its binding provisions would be for naught. Similarly, a Congress that passes a law with a 60 vote majority in very peculiar circumstances (one of the major parties having lost credibility) that prohibits its repeal by a 62 vote majority is not to be taken seriously. The entrenched provision is moot simply because it makes a mockery of law and cannot command the respect of any person of even modest intelligence. It is a contemptible statute that will be treated accordingly.
Then Posner makes the ludicrous claim that such binding provisions are analogous to starting a war or borrowing money because all of these act have consequences for future Congresses. Does he think we are three years of age? ALL laws have consequences for future Congresses and generations. The issue is what those consequences are. A truly analogous situation is a Congress that goes into debt and then asserts that no congress is allowed to pay it back, or a Congress that levies a war that future Congresses are prohibited from stopping. Notice how the entrenched provisions make a mockery out of otherwise benign statutes. Even sunset clauses are in no way comparable to these mockeries, because sunset clauses actually give MORE consideration to future congresses by allowing them to reassess the consequences of a law passed earlier. They do not bind Congresses in the way entrenched statues do. For Posner to say that sunset clauses are the inverse of entrenchment and are thus highly comparable is like me saying that war is the other side of peace and they are thus highly comparable. There is a reason why sunset clauses (in and of themselves) have never prompted an iota of controversy whereas these entrenchments are causing massive outrage.
In Posner’s paper, he treats this issue as though he were a freshman in a late-night bull session, looking at it as a trivialy academic logic puzzle, like the question as to whether God can make a boulder so large He can’t carry it. I honestly got the impression that the man was eighteen years of age while reading it. The reality of course, is very different. Entrenchment may or may not be Constitutional in a purely technical sense (even on this scale, Posner’s arguments seem weak–the magic of self-reference, for example) but it is irrelevant to the greater issue, that being that such provisions are a gross violation of democratic principle. It is not a matter of senate rules and procedures either, because these procedures are binding for present senates as they are for future ones. If the Senate changes the rules under which it operates, it must abide by these rules in addition to future Senates, who are themselves free to change them. Entrenchment provisions such as these are not matters of procedure, but of substance. It comes down to the fact that 60 people are purporting to bind billions of present and future U.S. Americans to a bill that does not even enjoy popular support today. The arrogance of such a gesture is spectacular.
Quite frankly, any law that changes inhibits future majorities in this way has to be done in the form of a Constitutional amendment, for such things are Constitutional in purview. The Constitution provides that laws such as these are to be decided by simple majorities. If a law were to indicate otherwise, quite simply you could appeal to the text of the Constitution involving how laws are written, observe that it indicates that such issues are dealt with by simple majorities, and the entrenchment becomes unconstitutional, null, void, and illegitimate, in addition to the absurdity we all knew it was.
Quote
December 24, 2009, 7:13 amRussell Sutherland says:
The current Congress has enacted a unique section within it’s Healthcare bill. Congressional legislation, as I understand it, cannot be immune from future change without an amendment to the Constitution. Why have constitional amendments if Congress can pass binding legislation? Another disturbing concern is that a Supreme Court with a liberal majority can declare this binding section constitional.
The good of the Country now is in the hands of Congressional members that face re-election this year. They must consider their future if they vote for this unprecedanted legislation.
Quote
January 1, 2010, 8:39 pmRussell Sutherland says:
Quote
January 1, 2010, 8:41 pmHenry Massingale says:
I have weighed this issue Health Care Bill vs. Constitution, and if a Political Party Gains control over a people because if the Health Care Tax Dollars, then it is laws with out moral value.
You see when tobacco companies became under fire the laws were based on a moral value because of the issues within.
The moral building blocks from Bill to Law is not supported because these Laws are for increase taxes and force pay against the people and a increase tax forum in a wide coverage stated to be in the best interest of the Country.
exmp.,
So this is Health Care Reform at its best, please allow me to share a concept that will open your mind in a way never thought of for a United Forum Concept. At first I stood alone and I wrote my first blog and little did I know that thousands of people and companies stood by it,
I have waited to see the issues of tax increase and health care, something that may be wrote by President Obama,
You see a lot of what I write, is in fact that, I do not seek Political support because I do not belong to any party. As for President Obama and theses 60 people that hold seat of Government who wish to build 1900 page of law to Govern this system because of this Health Care dollar. I watch them stumble about without a clue of how to fix this failed system. To see into this failure, you must allow this system to be seen as a forum for dollars of taxes created as a constant as a yearly figure. This prediction of dollar for the future, is in fact what I call Artificial Intelligence built on the hope that taxes will stay a constant figure.
To state it simple if Health Care Insurance Companies Unite and hand over this issue then the Officials of Government then they will have have no choice but to turn their eye to the companies of medication and medical supplies and hospitals and Doctors who charge cost that is the cause and effect of this failure within this system.
This Health Care Forum we offer is built on a moral value, a strategic forum to place issues to work ‚that offers freedom to be a part of it or not. This force pay against companies, force pay against VETS, and so on shows the lack of a moral building block within this Health Care Reform.
What we offer is that, will, Lets use the AARP Health Care Insurance Company, and lets say that they have 30 million members. To show that this company can earn $150 million dollars per month and be released from the burden of medical cost, by what we wish to show as health care tax forum and a freedom of choice for a pay in to a forum to a Insurance Company for people who do not trust this system within The United States Government. A tax forum forces the Government system to work for the people and at the same time forces Government Officials to work for the people within this forum.
To reach out to a company and sit down with them to build something never attempted in order to rebuild lives and the National Security of The United States as a moral building block without laws to Govern, but to protect this system from crime is what a moral law use to stand for.
To show a $100 trillion dollar strategic building block by companies of freewill that step forward to help rebuild America. To build the most powerful anti war / crime forum ever conceived by such as I a nobody that only seek to only go back to work as a painter and rebuild his little company dream.
As stated at first I stood alone against so many and I have found the uniting of people of different faith that seeks the same as I do. What makes FASC Concepts different, we do not ask for money and we opened a door for people to put their faith into themselves as a person and not what we say, to build on this and protect it under the concepts of law such as the Patriot Act. {A Moral Concept}
There is a day coming that Officials of Government will see that the Laws built against God and Country was the first steps of the United States Of America headed for failure because it lacks moral value. This is what our enemies see, a Country of Laws that should of never been created by few against so many people of the USA.
Is it so hard to see a concept for a Health Care Stimulus Package that builds jobs and life within a anti / crime forum ?
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
found on google.com. And yahoo look for page 1 american dream offical site.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 6:55 pmHenry Massingale says:
2/26/2010
Wow, It was stated that Health care is not a moral issue,hmmmm
Please allow me to share a little story with you. As I watched my mom die from cancer, and Health care Insurance Companies dumped on her as if she was no more than a dog dieing on the side of the road, i dropped from and out of this system for over 30 years, and now because of system failure, the IT, has come into my life. As I watch Government Officials fight over this Health care Dollar, it reminds me of a bright sunny day in Tennessee while on a friends farm and a little bug flew in to the ground, and the chickens went plum off, boy oh boy the scawking and the feathers went shy high, so I reached down and I took this scared little Health Care Bug from Government Officials, and I have it safely in my hands. As I searched for a way to help, I asked God to help me build a Reform that is of a moral building block for the better good of man kind and to rebuild the National Security of the United states Of America. And you would never guess what God has allowed me to see. This little blog statement you will find true,
first;
I wish to give a great big thank you to all my new friends on the Internet for posting FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward.
This building block for a honest Health Care Reform has been a great experience and for any one who did not take part, you have truly missed out on what makes Americans Great. This diversity created by Government Officials has failed and now the eyes of 173 million American People watch as now, for the first time Government Officials sit down together as it should be. The out come is yet to be seen. But they know that a anomaly has been created and it is because of the restructuring of The Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and The Declaration Of Independence, “has been used in it original created forum” as a factor of a peoples right to undo the amendments of Laws that protected Health Care Companies against the People, over a dollar.
And I wish to say i write what is needed in order that some how I can undo all the wrong I have done in hopes that the slate will be wiped clean....
Just because our children do not understand I wish to share this again,
“For days I worked the word diversity in my mind and it came to me that because of this it is not Americas weakness it is our greatest strength. And this is how I will show you.
Constitution–
Bill Of Rights -
The Declaration of Independence–
United under one forum, builds what is called the Trinity of the Protection Of Laws. This is because these Laws were built by people of faith who gave thanks to God for this wisdom. One would have to see and admire the simplicity of the three as one and at the same time they maintain their independence.”
On page 100 at our site is the early stages of what is called A Prime Directive for Health Care, so please drop on by and see 173 million peoples views in and for Health Care. And it should be known that this information on page 100 is true and documented in Law and History.
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google look for page 1 American dream official site.
Quote
February 26, 2010, 12:20 pmHenry Massingale says:
To see the true Health Care Tax forum you must stop thinking in 3-D,This multi tax forum is against a $100 Trillion Dollar system.. ...
To force pay into another system of failures within Health Care Insurance Groups.
This economy will not balance with this concept of a tax forum against the Health Care System. The issue of how to force pay into this system of Health Care may have worked but I am still troubled over the progressive tax forum within this Bill. It covers so many items and Countries that it only forces the system to adjust itself. In some areas, increases against the people and the troubled economy, and in other areas, less effects will be felt.
But this is my big problem, Government Officials seek help and they are to proud to ask us, “the true working force of Government.” It is understandable they have failed the People and within the United States Of America all we ask is to see us as who we are and not try to bring us into this world of the intellectual. I guess our Prime Directive is that of Star Trek, so it must be understood that for millions of people we are just as happy as can be making $13.00 per hour and we have no interest in this world of politics, and how to be a Enstine. Government Officials must understand that there is a level of people within different parts of this Country, that seek to be only that they find to make them happy.
As for this economy well, it is said that the U.S.A. Arms Division has created enough arsenal to destroy every last creature in the world 2 times over,built with tax dollars. This would be funny if not for the irony of it. And now as time has passed Government Officials keep failing. Before 9/11 all the way to today.
As it is in a world of a system, when employees continue to fail, one or two things happen, one; you get fired, two; if you see into a person a good, then it is political correct to implement a penalty or roll back in pay. But this implement of penalty is more favored in the course of action in the Federal Employment World. So how to fix the economy and unite it with the Health Care issue. It would be in the Countries best interest to implement a 10% per cent penalty against every State, County and Government Official within this Matrix of failures. Hey what is that old saying, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I am serous about this, it is past due to show that our Government Officials they have failed, their system failure reaches into this world of warnings that they brush aside as if the information is not worthy noting. From Pearl Harbor to 9/11/2001 to 3/07/2010 of our tax system and Health Care Reform. This 10% per cent penalty should go into the Health Care Forum.
The big problem that Government Officials have is that they have no street credit. President Obama still has some but if he does not take his family and step away from these dueling Parties, that fight over this Health Care Dollar, and stand with Us he will lose all credit from the streets to the county.
President Obama, I would say to you, you have one last chance to regain the hopes and dreams of the American People. To reach out in a concept that states, if there is 250 million people in trouble because of these failures, I would give all my money to them and then I would say to all that I gave money to, “I have no money left, would you all please give me $1.00 back and then I would have $250. million dollars to start all over again.”
As for this $100,trillion dollar in site.............
Results 1 — 10 of about 685,000 for net worth of medicine development industry
Just to show how deep this Health Care Tax split petition reaches. The term split petition is used because of the Tax factor plan that is not seen because of the intent not to show a capital Taxing of close to a $100 trillion dollar package, a yearly system income, not profit.....
Some have stated that I clam to have spiritual in site or something of the sort. I assure you this is not true, so when I state that I asked God to help, it is my way of saying hey Bobby show me how to work on theses Chevy engines. But I do thank you for the consideration. Consider me a cross of Jethro Bodine from the Beverly Hill Billies with my 10th. Grade education and Vin Diesel from the move Pitch Black.
So drop on by and see page 100 at our site and follow the blue pill link
Health Care within a moral value, is to ,
{ GIVE LIFE TO HOPE WHERE THERE IS NONE }
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google. yahoo, and Aol.com
please take the time and visit all my new friends on the net and if you wish to post with FASC Concepts you will be most welcomed. So join us and share your ideas as one in one voice.
Quote
March 14, 2010, 2:01 pmAnn says:
So, this whole health care issue goes by the wayside if republicans just develop an amendment to the constitution that forbids the state from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance? That way the supermajority requirement is effectively bypassed?
Thanks,
Quote
March 20, 2010, 12:56 pmhumana dental insurance says:
You’ve discussed that very well. I recognize the value of the detail you have put in this article. I realize very shortly our dental insurance will be depleted. We will be seeking such type of plan simply because we do have three babies we need to decide on the dentist. I appreciate you for the knowledge on this!
Quote
March 23, 2010, 11:18 pm