Freedom Index

A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution

 
Marcia Fudge

Marcia Fudge

Representative

OhioDistrict 11

Democrat

Contact:

Phone: 202-225-7032

Constitutional Votes

Score Congress
19% Lifetime
14% 116th (2019-2020) 116th (2019-2020)
13% 115th (2017-2018) 115th (2017-2018)
23% 114th (2015-2016) 114th (2015-2016)
31% 113th (2013-2014) 113th (2013-2014)
27% 112th (2011-2012) 112th (2011-2012)
10% 111th (2009-2010) 111th (2009-2010)
Marcia Fudge

Marcia Fudge

Representative

OhioDistrict 11

Democrat

Status: Active Legislator

Contact:

Phone: 202-225-7032

 

Constitutional Votes

Score Congress
19% Lifetime
14% 116th (2019-2020) 116th (2019-2020)
13% 115th (2017-2018) 115th (2017-2018)
23% 114th (2015-2016) 114th (2015-2016)
31% 113th (2013-2014) 113th (2013-2014)
27% 112th (2011-2012) 112th (2011-2012)
10% 111th (2009-2010) 111th (2009-2010)

Voting History

Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution

The Congressional Scorecard is a nationwide educational program of The John Birch Society. Its purpose is to create an informed electorate on how members of Congress are voting. The Scorecard is nonpartisan; it does not promote any candidate or political party. Bills are selected for their constitutional implications and cost to the taxpayers.

Please share this Scorecard in your district to inform people about the constitutionality of their congressman's votes.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I --- 11 C.F.R. §114(4)(c)(4) --- 616 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1980)

Congressional Scorecard

Based on the U.S. Constitution

Scorecard 111-1

The Congressional Scorecard is a nationwide educational program of The John Birch Society. Its purpose is to create an informed electorate on how members of Congress are voting. The Scorecard is nonpartisan; it does not promote any candidate or political party. Bills are selected for their constitutional implications and cost to the taxpayers.

Please share this Scorecard in your district to inform people about the constitutionality of their congressman's votes.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I --- 11 C.F.R. §114(4)(c)(4) --- 616 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1980)

The following scorecard lists several key votes in the 111th Congress (January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011) and ranks congressmen based on his or her fidelity to constitutional and limited-government principles.

The following scorecard lists several key votes in the 111th Congress (January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011) and ranks congressmen based on his or her fidelity to constitutional and limited-government principles.

Constitutional Vote Constitutional vote
Unconstitutional Vote Unconstitutional vote
Did not vote Did not Vote
This legislator voted constitutionally on 17% of the votes shown below.
Yes
Unconstitutional Vote

HR3590 ObamaCare (Passed 219 to 210 on 3/21/2010, Roll Call 165). Popularly known as "ObamaCare," this bill essentially completed the government takeover of the American healthcare system.

Estimated Cost Per Household: $8,508

This historic bill (H.R. 3590), officially titled the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," went on to be signed into law (Public Law 111-148) by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Popularly known as "ObamaCare," this bill essentially completed the government takeover of the American healthcare system that was begun with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The law creates 159 new government agencies, which will inevitably drive private healthcare insurers out of the market. This would create an exchange in each state for the purchase of government-approved health insurance, mandate that most individuals purchase health insurance, fine individuals who don't purchase health insurance, subsidize the purchase of health insurance, require employers with 50 or more employees to provide healthcare coverage or pay a fine if any employee gets a subsidized healthcare plan from the exchange, and prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance or to manage the healthcare industry.

ObamaCare

ObamaCare. This historic bill (H.R. 3590), officially titled the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," went on to be signed into law (Public Law 111-148) by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Popularly known as "ObamaCare," this bill essentially completed the government takeover of the American healthcare system that was begun with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The ObamaCare law creates 159 new government agencies, which will inevitably drive private healthcare insurers out of the market, just as its pilot program, RomneyCare, is already beginning to do in Massachusetts. Although its official cost estimate was $1 trillion for the first 10 years, ObamaCare will soon join Medicare and Medicaid in the list of unfunded healthcare liabilities of the federal government, which together add up to tens of trillions of dollars.

ObamaCare would create an exchange in each state for the purchase of government-approved health insurance, mandate that most individuals purchase health insurance, fine individuals who don't purchase health insurance, subsidize the purchase of health insurance for individuals earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, require employers with 50 or more employees to provide healthcare coverage or pay a fine if any employee gets a subsidized healthcare plan from the exchange, and prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The House agreed to a motion to concur with the Senate version of H.R. 3590 on March 21, 2010 by a vote of 219-212 (Roll Call 165). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance or to manage the healthcare industry.

View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590
No
Unconstitutional Vote

HCR248 Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers From Afghanistan (Rejected 65 to 356 on 3/10/2010, Roll Call 98). Would direct the President to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days of enactment, or by the end of the year.

This legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 248) would direct the President to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days of enactment, or by the end of the year if the President determines they cannot be safely removed sooner.

The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan cannot be justified on the basis of defending the United States, there has been no declaration of war, & Congress needs to assert constitutional authority to decide when we do go to war.

Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers From Afghanistan

Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers From Afghanistan. This legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 248) would direct the President to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days of enactment, or by the end of the year if the President determines they cannot be safely removed sooner.

The House rejected H. Con. Res. 248 on March 10, 2010 by a vote of 65 to 356 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan cannot be justified on the basis of defending the United States, there has been no declaration of war, and Congress needs to assert constitutional authority to decide when we do go to war.

View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hconres248
Yes
Unconstitutional Vote

HR3288 Omnibus Appropriations (Passed 221 to 202 on 12/10/2009, Roll Call 949). This legislation is comprised of six appropriations bills that Congress failed to complete separately. The price tag in the final version of H.R. 3288 is about $1.1 trillion.

Estimated Cost Per Household: $9,387

This catch-all legislative package (H.R. 3288) is comprised of six appropriations bills for fiscal 2010 that Congress failed to complete separately. The total price tag in the final version (conference report) of H.R. 3288 is about $1.1 trillion.

Many of the bill's spending programs — e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. — are unconstitutional. Moreover, lawmakers should have been able to vote on component parts of the total package.

 

Omnibus Appropriations

Omnibus Appropriations. This catch-all legislative package (H.R. 3288) is comprised of six appropriations bills for fiscal 2010 that Congress failed to complete separately - Commerce-Justice-Science; Financial Services; Labor-HHS-Education; Military Construction-VA; State-Foreign Operations; and Transportation-HUD. The total price tag in the final version (conference report) of H.R. 3288 is about $1.1 trillion, including $447 billion in discretionary spending.

The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 3288 on December 10, 2009 by a vote of 221-202 (Roll Call 949). We have assigned pluses to the nays because many of the bill's spending programs -- e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. -- are unconstitutional. Moreover, lawmakers should have been able to vote on component parts of the total package.

View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3288
Yes
Unconstitutional Vote

HR2454 Cap and Trade (Passed 219 to 212 on 6/26/2009, Roll Call 477). Would not merely "cap" carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gas emissions, ostensibly to fight global warming, but would reduce the amount of allowable emissions over time.

Estimated Cost Per Household: $7,220

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known as the cap-and-trade bill, would not merely "cap" carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gas emissions, ostensibly to fight global warming, but would reduce the amount of allowable emissions over time  to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. The government would auction or freely distribute a limited number of emission allowances, which companies would be able to buy or sell. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the effect of the House committee version of the bill would be to raise federal taxes by $846 billion and direct federal spending by $821 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

This legislation would be devastating to the economy if enacted and the federal government has no constitutional authority to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

Cap and Trade

Cap and Trade. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known as the cap-and-trade bill, would not merely "cap" carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gas emissions, ostensibly to fight global warming, but would reduce the amount of allowable emissions over time -- to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. The government would auction or freely distribute a limited number of emission allowances, which companies would be able to buy or sell. Of course, as the total amount of allowable emissions is reduced, the price of the allowances would skyrocket — and with them the price of electricity and whatever else is produced from burning fossil fuel. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the effect of the House committee version of the bill would be to raise federal taxes by $846 billion and direct federal spending by $821 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

The House passed the cap-and-trade bill on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212 (Roll Call 477). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this legislation would be devastating to the economy if enacted and the federal government has no constitutional authority to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2454
Yes
Constitutional Vote

HR2200 Body Image Screening (Passed 310 to 118 on 6/4/2009, Roll Call 305). Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of Whole-Body Imaging as the primary method of screening at airports.

During consideration of the H.R. 2200, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of Whole-Body Imaging (WBI) as the primary method of screening at airports. The amendment would allow passengers the option of a pat-down search rather than being subjected to a WBI search that shows extremely intimate details of one's body. The Chaffetz amendment would also prohibit TSA from storing, copying, or transferring any images that are produced by WBI machines.

Such technology is obtrusive for American citizens and violates our right of protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.

Body Image Screening

Body Imaging Screening. During consideration of the Transportation Security Administration Authorization bill (H.R. 2200), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of Whole-Body Imaging (WBI) as the primary method of screening at airports. The amendment would allow passengers the option of a pat-down search rather than being subjected to a WBI search that shows extremely intimate details of one's body. The Chaffetz amendment would also prohibit TSA from storing, copying, or transferring any images that are produced by WBI machines.

Since its creation, TSA has become infamous for its meddlesome searches and disregard for an individual's right of privacy. Evidence shows that corruption and mismanagement have been commonplace within the relatively new federal department for years. The Chaffetz amendment would do very little to scale back the power held by the TSA, but it does offer some hope that our representatives are not wholly unaware of how the TSA and its policies would threaten the privacy of American citizens through a process that has been called a "virtual strip-search."

The House adopted the Chaffetz amendment by a "Committee of the Whole" on June 4, 2009, by a vote of 310-118 (Roll Call 305). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because such technology is obtrusive for American citizens and violates our right of protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.

View vote details at opencongress.org/vote/2009/h/305
Yes
Unconstitutional Vote

SCR13 Budget Resolution (Passed 233 to 193 on 4/29/2009, Roll Call 216). The final version of the Fiscal 2010 Budget Resolution (SCR13) calls for $3.56 trillion in federal spending for the fiscal year.

Estimated Cost Per Household: $30,380

The final version of the Fiscal 2010 Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) calls for $3.56 trillion in federal spending for the fiscal year beginning on September 1, 2009. This level of spending would be significantly less than the $4.0 trillion the Obama administration forecast in May that the federal government would spend in the current fiscal year, but significantly more than the $3.0 trillion the federal government spent in fiscal 2008. And the deficit for fiscal 2010 would be more than $1 trillion.

Much of the budget is unconstitutional (e.g., foreign aid, education, healthcare, etc.), and the federal government should end deficit spending and live within its means.

Budget Resolution

Budget Resolution. The final version of the Fiscal 2010 Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) calls for $3.56 trillion in federal spending for the fiscal year beginning on September 1, 2009. This level of spending would be significantly less than the $4.0 trillion the Obama administration forecast in May that the federal government would spend in the current fiscal year (which includes the $700 billion TARP program), but significantly more than the $3.0 trillion the federal government spent in fiscal 2008. And the deficit for fiscal 2010 would be more than $1 trillion.

The House passed the final version (conference report) of the budget resolution on April 29, 2009, by a vote of 233-193 (Roll Call 216). We have assigned pluses to the nays because much of the budget is unconstitutional (e.g., foreign aid, education, healthcare, etc.), and the federal government should end deficit spending and live within its means.

View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/sconres13
Share this Report