The Constitution clearly states that any power not spelled out in that document is reserved to the states!!

The health, no insurance bill, is requiring people to purchase something very specific. That is a restriction on freedom of choice. If choice, ie Roe v Wade, is constitutional then this removal of choice is therby unconstitutional. Of course, that is logic and I am sure you will claim such is not a valid assertion since there is no chapter and verse that says as I claim. But then there is no chapter and verse in the Constitution FOR roe v Wade either!

Committing a felony removes your status as a full citizen!

Your comment re budget, debt, and deficit xxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx. After reading the example I think I should retract the previous statement. Special appropriations are suppose to be either emergency items that, obviously, come up at in opportune times or items that are brought to the floor after the budgets have been completed. Unfortunately our Congressman seems to treat most things as emergencies!

The first formula presents an accurate picture the second does not!

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
1. The constitution doesn't mention the FBI therefore the FBI is unconstitutional.

2. The constitution doesn't mention the CIA therefore the CIA is unconstitutional etc..

This is clearly wrong!

Something is unconstitutional only if there is something in the constitution that expressly forbids it, or something in the constitution guaranteeing the opposite. The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If you prefer from dictionary.com under legal dictionary:

contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution; especially : violative of a person's rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

This means if you are claiming the health law is unconstitutional you need to point out the specific part of the constitution that is violated. It is you who do not understand the constitution if you think that the government has no authority at all over anything that is neither permitted nor forbidden by the Constitution.

As for no longer considered a legal citizen, can you provide a source on this or is it another unsubstantiated claim from fox news?

As for the messed up budgetary system in the states, you can replace all instances of my use of the word budget, by "federal government total expenditure including appropriations" (now isn't that a ridiculously long mouthful). The fact that the government moves items outside the budget doesn't mean the expenses mysteriously vanish, there is a reason that that debt skyrockets far faster than the budgetary deficit.

As for my statement you claim is non-sensical.

Fact: All expenses in the US are either contained in the budget or are special appropriations.

Fact: The national debt grew from 5.1 Billion to 10.8 billion over 1 fiscal year.

Fact: The budgetary deficit for said fiscal year was X.

Conclusion: Special appropriations were 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion -X.

If you prefer to take this in smaller steps: The budgetary change in the national debt was X, growing the national debt to 5.1 Billion + X.

The actual national debt was 10.8 billion dollars, which means that 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion - X is the total spent on special appropriations.