The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution

And interesting table of how U.S. Senators and Congressmen "rate" by percentage on how they voted on legislation that reflects some kind of "Freedom" Index.

Looks like the lower the %, the more freedom infringing.

Some comparisons have:

Harry Reid 16%

Elijah Cummings - 22%

Dianne Feinstein - 12%

Nancy Pelosi - 18%

Marco Rubio - 80%

Ted Cruz - 89%

Rand Paul - 94%

Click on your favorite politician and see how their respective rating was arrived at.....

The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution

"The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution" rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores based on key votes from 1999 through June 2015. Click on a senator's or representative's name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.

Who benefits the most from "Less" freedom?

Democrats or Republicans

Who benefits the most from "Less" freedom? Democrats or Republicans

Truth be told they BOTH do.

Remember now if they were actually doing their jobs, fixing the problems they create. People would be happy, and wouldn't need them.

Which is the whole idear of American politics. To convince us we 'need' them.

We don't.

That is my idea of a 'freedom' index.

a reply to: xuenchen

Shouldn't they all be 100% considering they all must take an oath before taking office to uphold the constitution. Seems like all our representatives want to limit our freedoms.

i am shocked to see Ted Cruz rank so high. I really don't pay attention to him as he seems like a total cuckley dook.

I'd say anyone above 75% is at least worthy of my consideration. If the methodology passes my sniff test, anyway.

Let's see, basically a right-wing website releases a 'scorecard' where voting the GOP platform = "constitutional" and as a sane person might expect, GOP politicians are universally orders of magnitude more "constitutional."

For instance fom here comes an example of what's "constitutional:"

H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014, would establish a five-year program for oil and gas leasing. Title I, Subtitle A of the bill would require at least 25 percent of eligible federal land be made available each year to lease for oil and gas exploration. Furthermore, the Interior Department would be required to make available for oil and gas exploration and development at least 50 percent of the unleased coastal areas that have the most potential for energy production.

The House passed H.R. 4899 on June 26, 2014 by a vote of 229 to 185 (Roll Call 368). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not hinder the development and utilization of the nation's natural resources, including oil and gas. Encouraging and allowing such development is in line with the Constitution and should therefore be supported. Additionally, such a move would place America further along the road to energy self-sufficiency, which is important for national security and insulation from various global political crises.

or this one:

This bill (H.R. 3826) would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing, implementing, or enforcing any proposed rule under the Clean Air Act "that establishes a standard of performance for emissions of any greenhouse gas from any new source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit" unless such rule meets certain requirements as provided in this bill.

The House passed H.R. 3826 on March 6, 2014 by a vote of 229 to 183 (Roll Call 106). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would be harmful to the economy, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not pollutants, and the federal government has no constitutional authority to limit such emissions.

That's right, it's written no where in the constitution that the government should limit emissions of anything. It's also not written that the government shall create laws to limit emissions of anything. Voting to confirm Loretta Lynch is apparently an unconstitutional act because the GOP doesn't like her politics:

The Senate confirmed the nomination of Loretta Lynch for U.S. attorney general on April 23, 2015 by a vote of 56 to 43 (Roll Call 165). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Lynch is supportive of blatantly unconstitutional actions on the part of the executive branch.

Lynch supported President Obama's use of an executive order to offer de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and promised to implement such amnesty as attorney general. Lynch also supports civil forfeiture, which is certainly an unconstitutional violation of private property rights, and deems it an "important tool of the Department of Justice." As Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stated in early February when explaining his opposition to Lynch's nomination, "She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.... Mrs. Lynch also supports President Obama's calls for executive amnesty, which I vehemently oppose. The Attorney General must operate independent of politics, independent of the president and under the direction of the Constitution. I cannot support a nominee, like Mrs. Lynch, who rides roughshod on our Constitutional rights."

So yeah, why didn't they just make the score "most Republican" and stop pretending like it has anything to do with the Constitution?