Daniel Crenshaw On The Record

[PAF]

Daniel Crenshaw On The Record

House Representative (R), Texas-02
Data taken from https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/#/legislator/23967


- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR1799 [bad vote] - Paycheck Protection Program Extension - The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to bail out or lend funds to business.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR1158 [bad vote] - Omnibus Appropriations I - Many programs within this defense-related minibus are unconstitutional. This bill also is fiscally irresponsible, considering the $26 trillion national debt and projected $3.8 trillion budget deficit.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR1865 [bad vote] - Omnibus Appropriations II - Most of the spending programs in this appropriations bill are unconstitutional. Also, congressional spending for fiscal 2020 is grossly fiscally irresponsible. In mid-2020, our national debt was about $26 trillion, and the federal budget deficit for 2020 was expected to be an astounding $3.8 trillion.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR5430 [bad vote] - USMCA - Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to surrender our national sovereignty to any transnational regional government, including the nascent North American Union.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR6172 [bad vote] - FISA - While many of the proposed FISA modifications positive from a freedom and privacy standpoint, Congress should have instead voted to not reauthorize the FISA and let it expire. Despite the program’s title, the act permits surveillance of Americans who are not charged with any crime.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted NO on SJRes68 [bad vote] - War Powers - According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress may declare war. It is unfortunate that Congress has to pass a resolution enforcing this, but doing so puts a check on the war powers assumed by recent presidents.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR266 [bad vote] - Fourth Coronavirus Package (Replenishment for Small Business Loans) - Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to disburse loans to small businesses or cover the salaries of laid-off employees. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out businesses or the unemployed.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR1957 [bad vote] - Public Lands - This bill irresponsibly increases the federal deficit and diverts energy royalties from being spent for needed constitutional purposes. Additionally, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Moreover, the federal government already owns a huge percentage of land directly —about 28 percent of the nation — and is a demonstrably poor steward of public lands.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR7573 [bad vote] - Removing Statues From the Capitol - We oppose. The statues that fill the National Statuary Hall are sent by the states at their discretion, and Congress should not be assuming the authority to tell the states which statues they are and are not allowed to place in the hall. This is plainly an attempt to erase American history.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on S47 [bad vote] - Public Lands - The Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

- Daniel Crenshaw voted NO on SJRes7 [bad vote] - Yemen - Support. Congress has the power to declare war, and it has not authorized any intervention or war in Yemen. Nor should Congress do so since the civil war in Yemen does not threaten the U.S.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted YES on HR2157 [bad vote] - Disaster Supplemental Appropriations - Oppose. The federal government has no constitutional authority to rebuild areas stricken by natural disasters. Such activity should be undertaken by private companies and charities first, and, as a last resort, handled by local or state governments. Disasters would arguably be handled more effectively this way compared to the feds.

- Daniel Crenshaw voted NO on HR2500 [bad vote] - Indefinite Military Detention - We support Representative Amash’s amendment. Indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of the right to habeas corpus, the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a “speedy and public” trial (Sixth Amendment).



____

For a list of all potential candidates:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Presidential-Candidates-List-And-Information

 

[TheTexan]

- Daniel Crenshaw is a pirate YES

 

[CCTelander]

According to L. Neil Smith, back in 2019 he also supported red flag laws, to wit:

Profiles In Cowardice
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

If my seventy-three years on this poor, battered planet have taught me nothing else, it is that the rarest and most valuable human quality is courage, and that there are more kinds of courage than simply one.

The kind of courage that we usually think of first is battlefield courage, a strength of character that can take a man (or a woman) into harm’s way for a worthwhile cause, where he (or she) is likely to get injured, captured, or killed. An altogether different kind of courage has less to do with scars or medals than an ability to stand strong against one’s friends when they are not only wrong but dead wrong. It’s the difference between physical courage and what even the Nazi butcher Adolf Eichmann called “civil courage”. In 243 years of American history, vastly more damage has been done to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—to American values and the American way of life—by a lack of the latter kind of courage than of the former.

A lack of civil courage, a low, belly-crawling, yellow-striped, craven unwillingness to be embarrassed in the proper cause, negates all of the physical courage ever exhibited in warfare, and allows the home-grown communists that have taken over the Democrat Party and the national media to accomplish what jihadist hijackers, German Nazis, and Russian and Chinese collectivists never could.

A case in point is Texas Representative Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal who flaunts an eye-patch, signifying a war injury, to differentiate himself from the common herd. It requires courage just to be a Navy Seal, let alone to do what they do every day, but that hasn’t kept this man from bending the knee to the victim disarmament gang in Congress and to the corrupt, polluted news media, by endorsing new and massively unconstitutional gun laws. It begs the question what the flaming fuck did he imagine he was fighting for Over There? To exactly what noble cause did he believe he had sacrificed his eye?

Communists?, I pretend to hear you ask. Think about it: Democrats these days are every one, either explicit socialists, or socialists unwilling to publicly announce their real inclinations and intentions. You know who they are, every one of them. And socialism, no less an authority than V. I. Lenin tells us, is nothing more than communism with training wheels.

Thanks to a long string of spectacular, telegenic public shootings that look more and more politically contrived every year (yes, that’s exactly what I said), to news media that have long been a Democrat propaganda organ, and to gibbering weakness on the part of our supposed allies, these home-grown communists are about to try to disarm every gun owner in the country, using “red flag” laws that the Second Amendment, a part of the highest law of the land, specifically prohibits.

Under these laws, a mere judge can erase two centuries of American civil librtties. At least one individual so far, an old man in Maryland, has been murdered by the police because he wouldn’t give up the rights he knew were his without condition, and many more are likely to be murdered the same way, as well. Watch this blood-soaked space. And ask your local anti-gun legislator or Congressman why he wants to foment a civil war.

What does justice (civil, not social) demand in these circumstances? Any politician who writes red flag laws, sponsors them in the legislatures, or votes for them must be subject to fines and imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Sections 241 and 242, that make it a crime to deprive individuals of their rights “under color of law” or to conspire to do so. Any guilty bureaucrat or cop must be summarily removed from office under the Fourteenth Amendment, deprived of all pay and benefits, and forbidden ever to hold public office again.

If that’s not enough for you, then consider the words of the Second Amendment itself, which states that the individual right to own and carry weapons is “necessary to the security of a free state”. This means that backing or enforcing “gun control” is treason, plain and simple, punishable (under due process, I hasten to add) by death—preferably by public hanging.

Wanna do something about it? I suggest strongly that you demonstrate your own civil courage by printing out this essay and sending it to every bottom-feeding politico who claims to represent you by conspiring to violate your rights. Ask them why their inevitable “answer” to “gun violence” is to threaten everybody who didn’t commit it, with murder-by-cop. If you’re a cop yourself, you must take the same advice that I did, forty-five years ago, from the great historian and moral philosopher Robert LeFevre: resign right now before you destroy somebody’s life over something you don’t believe in, yourself.

And to Congressman Dan Crenshaw I say, lose the phony eye-patch, get yourself an honest glass eye, and just be the same, ordinary gutless slob on the outside that you are on the inside.

https://ncc-1776.org/tle2019/tle1037-20190908-02.html

 

[PAF]

[MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION]

Good catch! Good memory!

 

[Matt Collins]

He loves him some red flag gun confiscation!

 

[PAF]

The interesting thing, if nobody picked up on it yet...

Each of the ones who have an Index Score have a Lifetime Cumulative Rating in the 50%-60% range.

All of a sudden, for year 2021, all of them have a 90% score.

TALK ABOUT THROWING BONES!

 

[Sammy]

One of the worst republicans in congress.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1483491159766966277

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1483491159766966277

 

[donnay]

Never linked him from the get-go. Glad my instincts were on target.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Never linked him from the get-go. Glad my instincts were on target.

He had neocon written all over him.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Daniel Crenshaw On The Record

the Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

- The Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

SCOTUS has held otherwise.

The United States has large bodies of public lands. These properties are used for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes which are not covered by Clause 17. In Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington, 302 U.S. 186 , 58 S.Ct. 233, we upheld in accordance with the arrangements of the State and National Government the right of the United States to acquire private property for use in 'the reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands' (page 243) and to hold its purchases subject to state jurisdiction. In other instances, it may be deemed important or desirable by the national government and the state government in which the particular property is located that exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the United States by cession or consent. No question is raised as to the authority to acquire land or provide for national parks. As the national government may, 'by virtue of its sovereignty' acquire lands within the borders of states by eminent domain and without their consent, the respective sovereignties should be in a position to adjust their jurisdictions. There is no constitutional objection to such an adjustment of rights. It follows that jurisdiction less than exclusive may be granted the United States. The jurisdiction over the Yosemite National Park is exclusively in the United States except as reserved to California, e.g., right to tax, by the Act of April 15, 1919, St.Cal.1919, p. 74. As there is no reservation of the right to control the sale or use of alcoholic beverages, such regulatory provisions as are found in the Act under consideration are unenforceable in the Park. Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-530 (1938) (holding that California, which had ceded to the United States certain property that became part of Yosemite National Park, couldn't enforce its liquor laws within the area ceded. The authority of the federal government to acquire land for purposes other than those set forth in Clause 17 was upheld.)

 

[donnay]

He had neocon written all over him.

Absolutely.

 

[RJB]

I know what he meant, but his response to the little girl is very Jack Murphy-esque. It makes you wonder what lurks beneath.