It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New “Freedom Index" Rates Congressmen Based on Constitution

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Source


The New American has published its first “Freedom Index” for the new (112th) Congress. The index, published four times each two-year congressional term, rates all members of the House and Senate based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.

The new index, published in our August 8 issue and also available online as a PDF (click here), shows how U.S. Representatives and Senators performed on 10 key votes on important issues such as ObamaCare, greenhouse-gas regulation, the Patriot Act extension, and U.S. military action in Libya. In the case of the vote to repeal ObamaCare, for instance, the rating is based on voting to repeal being the correct vote. The reason: There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to require individuals to purchase health insurance or to manage the healthcare industry.


This “Freedom Index” was published by the New American but the index for previous Congresses can be found at JBS.org. John Birch Society is the creator of the index.

I found the index very interesting and the score of every Congressman. In the House the average score was 53% and in the Senate it was 43%, which is absolutely horrible. 24 Congressmen in the House got 100% scores and only 2 in the Senate did. Ron Paul earned 100% in the House, Rand Paul and Mike Lee earned 100% in the Senate.

Historical Lists




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Well it kinda like this... Not surprising the DR. Paul duo got a hundred percent. Its kinda like watching wwf wrestling and wondering if the wrestlers are using steroids lol. In a conspiratorial frame of thought, Are there any links from the john birch foundation to the good Dr's campaign contributions?
I absolutely side with Ron Paul but as an avid investigator I sometimes ask those questions regardless of whether I personally side with the investigatee



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Where in the Constitution are those principles mentioned? What your basically saying is that they are rating the Congressmen on their beliefs of what a Congressman should stand for.

It's an irrelevant way to judge people as others may judge them by other standards.

Don't forget that the Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power, not less.
edit on 1-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Misoir
 

Don't forget that the Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power, not less.


That was sarcasm, right?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForeverDusk

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Misoir
 

Don't forget that the Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power, not less.


That was sarcasm, right?


No that is a fact. The Articles of Confederation, which the country was under, gave the majority of power to the States and the Federal government had no ability to enforce anything therefore it was decided the country needed a document that gave more power to the Federal government. Hamilton and Jefferson went at it with Hamilton going for a stronger central government and Jefferson siding with the States.

Hamilton won out in the end however Jefferson did get the Bill of Rights tacked on. Just a matter of history so feel free to research it.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
So I took a quick look, not a single Democrat gets over 20% on the freedom index, while nearly all the Republicans are over 70%. I would say this index is slightly biased as it's been created by a Conservative organisation.

I dont believe that there can be such a huge difference between Dems and Reps.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


So is it within the constitution to "force" people to buy healthcare or not??

If so, I wonder what else they can force you to do.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
 


So is it within the constitution to "force" people to buy healthcare or not??

If so, I wonder what else they can force you to do.


I don't believe the government can force you to buy healthcare but i'd have to find where it states that exactly. I believe this issue is working it's way up to the Supreme Court if i'm not mistaken and they will shoot it down as expected.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


This, coming from the John Birch society. The same group that insisted that states had the right to inact racial segregation and interracial marriage bans in the past? What about the list? We have nearly all republicans getting above 70%, and nearly all democrats getting below 30%, despite the Republicans ralling behind the patriot act and the Iraq war. Are you passing this off as a serious measure? This source? Oh yes... yes, it's just "very interesting" to you.

edit on 1-8-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

Well it's fine that the JBS does this, and they make a point. But their ultra-conservative legacy will turn a lot of people off. They need to back up their beliefs with more than just diatribe. It's stupid to label anyone who is doing something you disagree with as "communist." Are the drug cartels all communists? Are the terrorist groups all communists?

I like their pro-Constitution stand, but would prefer an anti-crime stand to supplement that, rather than one that gets into political ideologies. Ideologies aren't what's important. The survival and uplifting of civilization on this planet and beyond is what's important. Show me the doingness (not the ideology) that can accomplish that and I'm on board.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


There are several Democrats who scored over 20%, where were you looking?


House of Representatives:

Sewell - 30%
Pastor - 30%
Ross - 60%
Costa - 30%
Richardson - 30%
Perlmutter - 40%
Castor - 22%
Bishop - 30%
Barrow - 30%
Costello - 50%
Visclosky - 30%
Donnelly - 40%
Braley - 30%
Boswell - 30%
Chandler - 30%
Pingree - 30%
Walz - 30%
Peterson - 50%
Nadler - 22%
Velazquez - 30%
Oowens - 22%
McIntyre - 70%
Shuler - 22%
Boren - 70%
DeFazio - 30%
Schrader - 40%
Altmire - 30%
Critz - 50%
Holden - 30%
Cicilline - 30%
Cohen - 22%
Green - 30%
Jackson Lee - 30%
Gonzalez - 30%
Cuellar - 30%
Green - 22%
Matheson - 30%
Welch - 30%
Rahall - 30%

SENATE:

Begich - 30%
Pryor - 30%
Udall - 30%
Blumenthal - 25%
Coons - 30%
Nelson - 30%
Landrieu - 30%
Baucus - 40%
Tester - 40%
Shaheen - 30%
Lautenberg - 30%
Menendez - 38%
Bingaman - 30%
Udall - 30%
Hagan - 30%
Wyden - 30%
Merkley - 30%
Warner - 22%
Cantwell - 30%
Manchin - 30%

Like you said this list was created by a conservative organization, a very conservative organization, so in my opinion, for any Democrat in a list like this created by JBS to even get 20% is a surprise. Not because I think Democrats are raging anti-constitutionalists but instead it is for the fact alone that the index was created by JBS.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

In the case of the vote to repeal ObamaCare, for instance, the rating is based on voting to repeal being the correct vote. The reason: There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to require individuals to purchase health insurance or to manage the healthcare industry.


I generally try to avoid to argue over the constitutionality of this law because...it could go either way. The government can 'force' you to buy health insurance. They can, it's not explicitly stated in the constitution as otherwise.

This issue will go to the supreme court in about three years, if not more. Until then there have been at least three judges that have sided with my interpretation and two that have not. So, congress was rated based on the John Birch Society's interpretation of the constitution and not any other interpretation.

I'm surprised Misoir, you're usually a little more...unbiased.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Why do people fail to understand that just because you post something does not mean you agree with it entirely. I know the John Birch Society is ultra-conservative and have done this as you said, based upon their interpretation of the constitution, but tell me this, does that mean I am not supposed to post it? And if I post it, does that mean I agree with it? Not once in My OP did I say "this describes the constitutionalism of congressman perfectly", all I said was that it is interesting.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Come on now, you should realize at this point a huge number of people will skip everything but the OP. You felt the need to share something so off-kilter as this for some reason. If you don't agree, I'd hope you'd spell that out...if you do agree then say it. If you're unsure why bother sharing it unless you have some other source to counter act it?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I would say more of a neutral opinion towards it but I posted it so that people could read it, for me it is about getting more information out there whether or not I particularly agree with said information. This is no different, my indifference towards it should not distract people from making their own opinions of what I had posted.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

It seems both are over rated the original constitution was against most of these entitlements taxes and all the other nanny state things we are burdened with today nationalizing healthcare is not FREEDOM



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not The People. Our rights come from our Creator.
Anyway, I am reminded of the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution is VERY specific as to what powers the Federal government has; unfortunately between Congress and the Supreme Court, over time, this limiting of the federal government has become weakened.
Thanks, OP, for sharing this information.




top topics



 
5

log in

join