Massie only one to score 100% on US Freedom Index

[Matt Collins]

From his FB page:

I am honored to be the only congressman with a 100% score on the Freedom Index, based on 20 key votes taken in the first session of the 114th Congress (2015). Attached is their comprehensive review of those 20 votes as well as scores for all senators and representatives.

For more information: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_114-2.pdf

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

That's nice, but I doubt the rest of Congress is rushing to get a high score or add this on their list of qualifications for office. This is good for the freedom crowd, but that's about it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

They only provide the details on the last 10 of the 20 bills.

As for those, Amash and Walter Jones both got the same score as Massie.

...and they both have 95% overall, meaning they voted "wrong" on one of the first 10 bills - wonder what it was?

As for the Senate, Rand voted "right" on all but one bill, #12 (he voted right on all of the first 10), which was for authorizing arms shipments to the Kurds to fight ISIS. That's not clearly anti-freedom. Libertarians aren't opposed in principle to arming foreigners for national defense purposes, the question is whether arming the Kurds is necessary for our national defense. I think not, myself, but it's debatable.

Lee voted the same on that bill, he also voted "wrong" on torture, which is much more clearly anti-freedom.

Cruz also voted to authorize arming the Kurds, and missed a vote relating to education (got same score, 89%, on first 10 bills, so 1 wrong 1 missed I guess).

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The New American gets some things wrong, sure, but higher scores on their freedom index usually correlates with politicians more favorable to liberty.

 

[William Tell]

As for the Senate, Rand voted "right" on all but one bill, #12 (he voted right on all of the first 10), which was for authorizing arms shipments to the Kurds to fight ISIS. That's not clearly anti-freedom. Libertarians aren't opposed in principle to arming foreigners for national defense purposes, the question is whether arming the Kurds is necessary for our national defense. I think not, myself, but it's debatable.

The Freedom index is based on those who compile it's views on the Constitution. Not strictly what libertarians are or are not opposed to ideologically. Regardless, its the most helpful scoring of votes I know of though of course not perfect.

 

[William Tell]

Awesome job by Massie! Way to go!

 

[Warlord]

Superb. This is the old JBS scorecard right?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The Freedom index is based on those who compile it's views on the Constitution. Not strictly what libertarians are or are not opposed to ideologically.

Well that's even more puzzling.

How would Congress authorizing the arming of the Kurds be unconstitutional?

Regardless, its the most helpful scoring of votes I know of though of course not perfect.

Yea, I agree, not trying to discredit the index.

 

[specsaregood]

How would Congress authorizing the arming of the Kurds be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? How could it be constitutional?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Shouldn't it be the other way around? How could it be constitutional?

Article I Section 8 authorizes Congress to make expenditures for the purpose of national defense, including to "raise and support armies."

It doesn't explicitly mention subsidies to foreign armies, but IMO that's clearly implied.

Subsidizing the enemies of one's enemies was not a new concept when the Constitution was written.

Hell, the US wouldn't exist had the French not subsidized the colonists: enemies of their British enemy.

I don't think the founders intended to prohibit such actions.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[vita3]

Massie seems to be a great representative.

 

[Makes Interesting Points]

Scary how most of the Democrats have really terrible scores on that chart from The New American. Do they really hate the Constitution that much? House Rep Hinojosa has 0%.

I find it really funny that Rubio has 90% on there, but if you look next to his name, there's tons of "?" marks, because he hardly shows up to vote Lol. So he just got lucky with a couple good votes & didn't show up for the rest.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I wasn't really saying that one could not argue that it could be constitutional. Just that you have to justify them, not the other way around. I don't know the JBS reasoning on the vote; but they'd probably consider it unconstitutional based on very strict limited interpretation. Also, whether the French subsidized colonists should have no bearing on whether an action is constitutional -- that just happens to be the type of reasoning the S.C. used to make the draft legal.

It goes to original intent.

Since Article I Section 8 is unclear on its face regarding subsidies to foreign armies, one has to try to discover the original intent of the authors.

That they had just benefited from foreign military subsidies themselves makes it less likely, it seems to me, that they'd have some principled opposition to the same.

 

[Matt Collins]

Scary how most of the Democrats have really terrible scores on that chart from The New American. Do they really hate the Constitution that much? House Rep Hinojosa has 0%.

Remember that the people doing the scoring are looking through a paleo-right lens at the Constitution. Of course it is the correct viewpoint, but Democrats are going to be a lot farther away than Republicans most of the time.

 

[TheTyke]

Just to point out, you can look up the lifetime rating of legislators, listing all the scored votes at: http://thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

You can even look up politicians no longer in office! It is fantastic for really getting a feel for a candidate, and even for opposition research. And there are great stories to be found in the records... such as Walter Jones' transformation from a pretty bad politician to one of the greatest defenders of liberty after meeting Ron Paul.