Daniel Webster for Speaker of The House

[Brian4Liberty]

648485768235720704


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_123LxbEprg

Thomas Massie endorses Webster at the 9:00 minute mark in the following interview:

https://soundcloud.com/the-joe-elliott-show/10-01-15-congressman-thomas-massey

[Brian4Liberty]

Webster on the radio:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbuCpQcrIqA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWjZ6E_Wtss

[William Tell]

Yes.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiGJPPIrpNs

[Brian4Liberty]

Power vs. Principle Why I Am Running For Speaker Of The House (https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/Power-vs-Principle-Why-I-am-Running-for-Speaker-of-the-House)
By: Rep. Daniel Webster | September 29th, 2015


There are two types of political systems: one based on power, and the other based on principle.

For 16 years in the Florida legislature, I sat under a process governed by power. My voice wasn’t heard. My bills weren’t brought up. A few select people at the top of a pyramid of power made all the decisions. At the bottom of the pyramid, individual members of both parties were essentially powerless pawns, merely forced to make a yes or no choice on a final product.

There must be a wholesale change in the way we govern.

In legislative bodies, a power-based system is the default. It is a powerful force that rears itself as an underlying motivation in any governing body. And because power is rooted so deeply into the political system, principles cannot merely serve as an additive. There must be a wholesale change in the way we govern.

Power and principle cannot coexist.

When I became Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, I instituted fundamental changes that shifted the entire focus in the legislature. It became a process built on principle, not power. It placed Members at the forefront.

A system of power is set on self-preservation. On the contrary, a system based on principles centers on creating good public policy.

One of the most significant contrasts between power and principle is revealed when it comes to policy considerations. Power tends to view a bill based on the position, loyalty, rank, or seniority of the sponsor. Principle focuses on the legislation itself, and views the idea on its own merits.

Power tends to protect itself merely to maintain its own status and control. Principle gives up power for the sake of the highest good in order to create the best public policy.

Power demands to be heard. Principle earns the right to be heard.

Power focuses on claiming rights and fosters feelings of privilege. Principle focuses on giving up rights and centers on service.

Changing from a paradigm of power to a system based on principle is not easy. The status quo is hard to break.

But that is where leadership comes in.

Rather than being cowed by veto threats coming from the White House or the fear of Senate inaction, the House of Representatives should work its own will. We should fulfill our prescribed responsibilities faithfully, including taking up the most important bills first instead of allowing deadlines to dictate our decisions.

Principle supersedes party, position, or political pandering. The process itself would thoroughly vet ideas, and thus cut out most of the unintended consequences that so often follow legislation.

Every Member should be given the opportunity to have their bills heard and brought up for a vote. It is not the responsibility of leadership to pass those bills; it is their responsibility to make sure they are given a chance at passage.

Rather than focusing on making a specific party or ideology successful, principle would dictate that the ideas themselves would stand on their own merit. By suppressing the pyramid of power and spreading out the base, each Member has the opportunity to be successful and represent the concerns of their individual districts.

Principle supersedes party, position, or political pandering. The process itself would thoroughly vet ideas, and thus cut out most of the unintended consequences that so often follow legislation.
...
More: http://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/Power-vs-Principle-Why-I-am-Running-for-Speaker-of-the-House

[Ronin Truth]

Damn, I had no idea that he was still around. How old is that dude? He must be really ancient.

[vita3]

I'm interested.

Called up Walter Jones office & they said they haven't settled in on best candidate to support.
Did mention Webster for last go around.

[Southron]

If he will stop the continuing resolutions, he may be worth supporting.

[Brian4Liberty]

Thomas Massie endorses Webster at the 9:00 minute mark...

https://soundcloud.com/the-joe-elliott-show/10-01-15-congressman-thomas-massey

[Matt Collins]

I am sure there are many more bad votes he did, but these were the quick easy ones I could find.



Debt Deal - (giving Obama more power, money, and raising the national debt)
This legislation (S. 365) provided for an immediate $400 billion increase in the national debt limit, while allowing the President to raise the ceiling an additional $500 billion unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval. This legislation also established a process for reducing future cumulative deficit projections by up to $2.4 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, including the establishment of a supercommittee tasked with recommending cuts totaling up to $1.5 trillion for the 10-year period. If the supercommittee were to fail in recommending at least $1.2 trillion in cuts (and, as we know, the supercommittee failed to recommend any cuts), then the legislation would trigger automatic cuts totaling up to $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The debt-raising/deficit-cutting package created the appearance that Congress was doing something to rein in out-of-control spending. But in reality, the total national debt would still increase even if the entire dollar amount of cuts called for in the legislation were identified and enacted, since the cuts are not cuts in the absolute sense but cuts in future budget projections. The national debt would continue to go up, but not as fast as before, for the simple reason that cutting (say) $1.2 trillion over 10 years will not offset projected annual $1 trillion-plus deficits. The House passed S. 365 on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269 to 161 (Roll Call 690). The debt deal allows both the national debt and spending to continue their upward trajectories. Moreover, the budget process established by the legislation is clearly unconstitutional since no Congress can bind the actions of future Congresses via the so-called automatic cuts.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this.



Agriculture Commerce Justice Science Transportation HUD Appropriations (wasteful spending) -
This so-called “minibus” bill (H.R. 2112) combined into a single package three of the regular appropriations bills — Agriculture, Commerce-JusticeScience, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (HUD) — for fiscal 2012. Just the “discretionary” spending in the minibus for the three-bill package totaled $128.1 billion. In addition, there is the spending that the government deems “mandatory.” In the case of the Agriculture bill that was incorporated into the minibus, for instance, the appropriations include $116.8 billion in mandatory spending in addition to $19.8 billion in discretionary spending. The so-called mandatory spending in the Agriculture bill includes nearly $99 billion for food and nutrition programs. The House passed the final version of this bill (known as a conference report) on November 17, 2011 by a vote of 298 to 121 (Roll Call 857). Congress has no constitutional authority to fund many of the programs in the bill, including the farm programs, food programs, and housing (under HUD).
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Patriot Act Extension - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
This legislation (S. 990) extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire: the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect’s telephone/Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; the “financial records” provision that allows the feds to seize “any tangible thing” that has “relevance” to an investigation; and the “lone wolf” provision that allows spying on non U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued “but upon probable cause” (a much higher standard than “relevance”), and that warrants must contain language “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”The Patriot Act even allows the FBI to issue warrants called “National Security Letters” without going to a judge, though this provision was not set to expire and therefore was not part of this legislation. The House passed the Patriot Act extension on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 250 to 153 (Roll Call 376). The provisions that were extended, as well as the Patriot Act as a whole, violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving Obama this power.



Foreign Relations Authorization - (giving your tax dollars to the U.N.)
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 6018) authorizes $9 billion for the State Department’s diplomatic and consular programs, $1.6 billion for dues to international organizations (about $0.6 billion for UN regular budget dues and about $1 billion in contributions to 43 other UN-system, regional, and non-UN organizations), and $1.8 billion for contributions for UN peacekeeping activities. The United States is the largest contributor to UN dues and peacekeeping, paying 22 percent of total UN regular dues and 27 percent of UN peacekeeping operations. When the U.S. Senate approved U.S. participation in the United Nations by a vote of 65 to 7 on December 4, 1945, it violated the Constitution by ceding our national sovereignty regarding engaging in wars to the United Nations. Whereas the Constitution grants the power “to declare war” exclusively to Congress in Article I, Section 8, the UN Charter grants this power to the UN’s Security Council. The House passed H.R. 6018 on July 17, 2012 by a vote of 333 to 61 (Roll Call 469). U.S. participation in the United Nations involves an unconstitutional delegation of our national sovereignty to the UN.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this increase in spending.



Afghanistan Withdrawal (Cutting wasteful spending) -
During consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 (H.R. 5856), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to cut overseas military spending by almost $21 billion. The intent behind the amendment was to allow enough funding for an orderly withdrawal from the unpopular war in Afghanistan but not enough to continue the conflict. According to Rep. Lee, the original bill includes over $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan.The House rejected Lee’s amendment on July 18, 2012 by a vote of 107 to 312 (Roll Call 485). The massive expenditure on undeclared foreign wars and nation building is unconstitutional and unaffordable.
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST this spending cut.



FISA - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
The proposed FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 5949) would reauthorize for five years, through 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The law allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States, provided that the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures.The Senate passed H.R. 5949 on September 12, 2012 by a vote of 301 to 118 (Roll Call 569). Warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and violates privacy and individual liberty. While ostensibly carried out only on “foreign suspects” communicating with U.S. citizens, it is difficult to imagine this surveillance not extending to U.S. citizens.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving this power to Obama.



Continuing Resolution - (spending increase)
House Joint Resolution 117 would provide continuing appropriations for the federal government from October 1, 2012 through March 27, 2013. This would amount to an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion in “discretionary” spending for regular appropriations, and would include a 0.6 percent increase in funding for most federal programs and agencies. This continuing resolution would also provide nearly $100 billion in war funding and $6.4 billion in advance disaster relief funds. To put this appropriations bill into perspective, consider what the Congressional Budget Office reported on August 22, 2012: “For fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion, CBO estimates, marking the fourth year in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion.” This deficit is based on the CBO’s estimates of $2.435 trillion in federal revenue and $3.563 trillion in federal outlays for fiscal 2012. Therefore, 32 percent of every federal dollar spent in 2012 had to be borrowed. For 2011, 2010, and 2009 the shortfall has been 36, 37, and 40 percent respectively. The House passed H. J. Res. 117 on September 13, 2012 by a vote of 329 to 91 (Roll Call 579). Passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Omnibus Appropriations - (spending increase)
This catch-all legislative package (H.R. 2055), which would provide $915 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2012, is comprised of nine appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 that Congress failed to complete separately — Defense ($518.8 billion), Energy-Water ($32.1 billion), Financial Services ($21.5 billion), Homeland Security ($41.3 billion), Interior-Environment ($29.2 billion), LaborHHS-Education ($156.3 billion), Legislative Branch ($4.3 billion), State-Foreign Operations ($33.5 billion), and Military Construction-VA ($73.7 billion). The House adopted the final version of this legislation (known as a conference report) on December 16, 2011 by a vote of 296 to 121 (Roll Call 941). Many of the bill’s spending programs — e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. — are unconstitutional. Moreover, passing this mammoth appropriations bill in light of the ongoing trillion-dollar annual deficits is grossly fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, packaging the appropriations bills for so many large federal agencies into one mega-bill greatly reduces the accountability of the Congressmen to their constituents.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Line-item Veto - (giving more power to Obama)
This bill (H.R. 3521) would allow the President to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of
funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills. Although both houses of Congress would have to approve any such rescissions, they would be forced to do so very quickly by the bill’sexpedited procedures, including a prohibition on amendments in both Houses and filibusters in the Senate. This bill dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the executive branch. Note that Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative powers. Any bill that shifts legislative power away from Congress and to the President is violating the constitutionally defined separation of powers for the legislative and executive branches. A similar line-item veto law was passed when Clinton was President. That one was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The House passed H.R. 3521 on February 8, 2012 by a vote of 254 to 173 (Roll Call 46). Providing any form of lineitem veto power to the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving more power to Obama.



IPAB (Death Panel) Repeal -
This legislation (H.R. 5) would repeal the provisions of the 2010 ObamaCare healthcare overhaul laws that established the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) responsible for curbing Medicare costs. It would restore previous law provisions to maintain the current Medicare spending review process. This bill is important because it would repeal the high-profile IPAB “death panel” provision of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law. The IPAB Board would be made up of 15 unelected members chosen by the President. According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the IPAB “could deny payment for certain care or medications, change the service options doctors have, and drive expensive, lifesaving treatments out. Instead of discuss-ing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for you.” The House passed H.R. 5 on March 22, 2012 by a vote of 223 to 181 (Roll Call 126). The IPAB provision of the ObamaCare law is clearly unconstitutional.
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST repealing this part of Obamacare.



Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
This bill (H.R. 3523) would foster information sharing about cyber threats between the federal government and private businesses. Businesses that would participate in this sharing would be protected from lawsuits regarding this sharing of their customers’ private information with the government. According to Violet Blue in an article posted on ZDNet.com on June 8, “Most people familiar with CISPA believe it will wipe out decades of consumer privacy protections and is primarily to give the US government unprecedented access to individuals’ online data and communications.” The House passed H.R. 3523 on April 26, 2012 by a vote of 248 to 168 (RollCall 192). The CISPA bill would permit government access to the private information of citizens, in violation of the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving Obama this power.



Indefinite Detention - (allowing Obama to throw anyone in jail)
Detainee related language in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) is so sweeping that American citizens accused of being terrorists can be detained by the U.S. military and held indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to strike this language from the bill, but the House rejected Smith’s amendment on May 18, 2012 by a vote of 182 to 238 (Roll Call 270). The War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutional legal protections, including the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and the right to a trial (Sixth Amendment).
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST taking this power away from Obama.

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah. Those are pretty bad.


I am sure there are many more bad votes he did, but these were the quick easy ones I could find.



Debt Deal - (giving Obama more power, money, and raising the national debt)
This legislation (S. 365) provided for an immediate $400 billion increase in the national debt limit, while allowing the President to raise the ceiling an additional $500 billion unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval. This legislation also established a process for reducing future cumulative deficit projections by up to $2.4 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, including the establishment of a supercommittee tasked with recommending cuts totaling up to $1.5 trillion for the 10-year period. If the supercommittee were to fail in recommending at least $1.2 trillion in cuts (and, as we know, the supercommittee failed to recommend any cuts), then the legislation would trigger automatic cuts totaling up to $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The debt-raising/deficit-cutting package created the appearance that Congress was doing something to rein in out-of-control spending. But in reality, the total national debt would still increase even if the entire dollar amount of cuts called for in the legislation were identified and enacted, since the cuts are not cuts in the absolute sense but cuts in future budget projections. The national debt would continue to go up, but not as fast as before, for the simple reason that cutting (say) $1.2 trillion over 10 years will not offset projected annual $1 trillion-plus deficits. The House passed S. 365 on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269 to 161 (Roll Call 690). The debt deal allows both the national debt and spending to continue their upward trajectories. Moreover, the budget process established by the legislation is clearly unconstitutional since no Congress can bind the actions of future Congresses via the so-called automatic cuts.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this.



Agriculture Commerce Justice Science Transportation HUD Appropriations (wasteful spending) -
This so-called “minibus” bill (H.R. 2112) combined into a single package three of the regular appropriations bills — Agriculture, Commerce-JusticeScience, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (HUD) — for fiscal 2012. Just the “discretionary” spending in the minibus for the three-bill package totaled $128.1 billion. In addition, there is the spending that the government deems “mandatory.” In the case of the Agriculture bill that was incorporated into the minibus, for instance, the appropriations include $116.8 billion in mandatory spending in addition to $19.8 billion in discretionary spending. The so-called mandatory spending in the Agriculture bill includes nearly $99 billion for food and nutrition programs. The House passed the final version of this bill (known as a conference report) on November 17, 2011 by a vote of 298 to 121 (Roll Call 857). Congress has no constitutional authority to fund many of the programs in the bill, including the farm programs, food programs, and housing (under HUD).
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Patriot Act Extension - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
This legislation (S. 990) extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire: the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect’s telephone/Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; the “financial records” provision that allows the feds to seize “any tangible thing” that has “relevance” to an investigation; and the “lone wolf” provision that allows spying on non U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued “but upon probable cause” (a much higher standard than “relevance”), and that warrants must contain language “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”The Patriot Act even allows the FBI to issue warrants called “National Security Letters” without going to a judge, though this provision was not set to expire and therefore was not part of this legislation. The House passed the Patriot Act extension on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 250 to 153 (Roll Call 376). The provisions that were extended, as well as the Patriot Act as a whole, violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving Obama this power.



Foreign Relations Authorization - (giving your tax dollars to the U.N.)
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 6018) authorizes $9 billion for the State Department’s diplomatic and consular programs, $1.6 billion for dues to international organizations (about $0.6 billion for UN regular budget dues and about $1 billion in contributions to 43 other UN-system, regional, and non-UN organizations), and $1.8 billion for contributions for UN peacekeeping activities. The United States is the largest contributor to UN dues and peacekeeping, paying 22 percent of total UN regular dues and 27 percent of UN peacekeeping operations. When the U.S. Senate approved U.S. participation in the United Nations by a vote of 65 to 7 on December 4, 1945, it violated the Constitution by ceding our national sovereignty regarding engaging in wars to the United Nations. Whereas the Constitution grants the power “to declare war” exclusively to Congress in Article I, Section 8, the UN Charter grants this power to the UN’s Security Council. The House passed H.R. 6018 on July 17, 2012 by a vote of 333 to 61 (Roll Call 469). U.S. participation in the United Nations involves an unconstitutional delegation of our national sovereignty to the UN.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this increase in spending.



Afghanistan Withdrawal (Cutting wasteful spending) -
During consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 (H.R. 5856), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to cut overseas military spending by almost $21 billion. The intent behind the amendment was to allow enough funding for an orderly withdrawal from the unpopular war in Afghanistan but not enough to continue the conflict. According to Rep. Lee, the original bill includes over $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan.The House rejected Lee’s amendment on July 18, 2012 by a vote of 107 to 312 (Roll Call 485). The massive expenditure on undeclared foreign wars and nation building is unconstitutional and unaffordable.
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST this spending cut.



FISA - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
The proposed FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 5949) would reauthorize for five years, through 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The law allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States, provided that the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures.The Senate passed H.R. 5949 on September 12, 2012 by a vote of 301 to 118 (Roll Call 569). Warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and violates privacy and individual liberty. While ostensibly carried out only on “foreign suspects” communicating with U.S. citizens, it is difficult to imagine this surveillance not extending to U.S. citizens.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving this power to Obama.



Continuing Resolution - (spending increase)
House Joint Resolution 117 would provide continuing appropriations for the federal government from October 1, 2012 through March 27, 2013. This would amount to an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion in “discretionary” spending for regular appropriations, and would include a 0.6 percent increase in funding for most federal programs and agencies. This continuing resolution would also provide nearly $100 billion in war funding and $6.4 billion in advance disaster relief funds. To put this appropriations bill into perspective, consider what the Congressional Budget Office reported on August 22, 2012: “For fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion, CBO estimates, marking the fourth year in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion.” This deficit is based on the CBO’s estimates of $2.435 trillion in federal revenue and $3.563 trillion in federal outlays for fiscal 2012. Therefore, 32 percent of every federal dollar spent in 2012 had to be borrowed. For 2011, 2010, and 2009 the shortfall has been 36, 37, and 40 percent respectively. The House passed H. J. Res. 117 on September 13, 2012 by a vote of 329 to 91 (Roll Call 579). Passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Omnibus Appropriations - (spending increase)
This catch-all legislative package (H.R. 2055), which would provide $915 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2012, is comprised of nine appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 that Congress failed to complete separately — Defense ($518.8 billion), Energy-Water ($32.1 billion), Financial Services ($21.5 billion), Homeland Security ($41.3 billion), Interior-Environment ($29.2 billion), LaborHHS-Education ($156.3 billion), Legislative Branch ($4.3 billion), State-Foreign Operations ($33.5 billion), and Military Construction-VA ($73.7 billion). The House adopted the final version of this legislation (known as a conference report) on December 16, 2011 by a vote of 296 to 121 (Roll Call 941). Many of the bill’s spending programs — e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. — are unconstitutional. Moreover, passing this mammoth appropriations bill in light of the ongoing trillion-dollar annual deficits is grossly fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, packaging the appropriations bills for so many large federal agencies into one mega-bill greatly reduces the accountability of the Congressmen to their constituents.
Daniel Webster voted FOR this spending increase.



Line-item Veto - (giving more power to Obama)
This bill (H.R. 3521) would allow the President to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of
funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills. Although both houses of Congress would have to approve any such rescissions, they would be forced to do so very quickly by the bill’sexpedited procedures, including a prohibition on amendments in both Houses and filibusters in the Senate. This bill dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the executive branch. Note that Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative powers. Any bill that shifts legislative power away from Congress and to the President is violating the constitutionally defined separation of powers for the legislative and executive branches. A similar line-item veto law was passed when Clinton was President. That one was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The House passed H.R. 3521 on February 8, 2012 by a vote of 254 to 173 (Roll Call 46). Providing any form of lineitem veto power to the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving more power to Obama.



IPAB (Death Panel) Repeal -
This legislation (H.R. 5) would repeal the provisions of the 2010 ObamaCare healthcare overhaul laws that established the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) responsible for curbing Medicare costs. It would restore previous law provisions to maintain the current Medicare spending review process. This bill is important because it would repeal the high-profile IPAB “death panel” provision of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law. The IPAB Board would be made up of 15 unelected members chosen by the President. According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the IPAB “could deny payment for certain care or medications, change the service options doctors have, and drive expensive, lifesaving treatments out. Instead of discuss-ing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for you.” The House passed H.R. 5 on March 22, 2012 by a vote of 223 to 181 (Roll Call 126). The IPAB provision of the ObamaCare law is clearly unconstitutional.
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST repealing this part of Obamacare.



Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) - (allowing Obama to spy on us)
This bill (H.R. 3523) would foster information sharing about cyber threats between the federal government and private businesses. Businesses that would participate in this sharing would be protected from lawsuits regarding this sharing of their customers’ private information with the government. According to Violet Blue in an article posted on ZDNet.com on June 8, “Most people familiar with CISPA believe it will wipe out decades of consumer privacy protections and is primarily to give the US government unprecedented access to individuals’ online data and communications.” The House passed H.R. 3523 on April 26, 2012 by a vote of 248 to 168 (RollCall 192). The CISPA bill would permit government access to the private information of citizens, in violation of the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Daniel Webster voted FOR giving Obama this power.



Indefinite Detention - (allowing Obama to throw anyone in jail)
Detainee related language in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) is so sweeping that American citizens accused of being terrorists can be detained by the U.S. military and held indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to strike this language from the bill, but the House rejected Smith’s amendment on May 18, 2012 by a vote of 182 to 238 (Roll Call 270). The War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutional legal protections, including the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and the right to a trial (Sixth Amendment).
Daniel Webster voted AGAINST taking this power away from Obama.

[William Tell]

I am sure there are many more bad votes he did, but these were the quick easy ones I could find.

Yeah, he's not a liberty Republican, we know that. So what's your point?

Massie wants a fair speaker, that's the best he can hope for.

[William Tell]

If he will stop the continuing resolutions, he may be worth supporting.

I think that's part of why Massie is backing him.

[vita3]

Maybe DrPaul should bring him on show?

[Brian4Liberty]

McCarthy, Webster to face conservatives at forum (http://www.politico.com/blogs/the-gavel/2015/10/conservatives-to-hold-forum-for-speaker-candidates-214346)
By Lauren French - 10/01/15


Four groups of House conservatives have invited the candidates for House speaker to address them at a forum on Tuesday.

The Conservative Opportunity Society, the House Freedom Caucus, the House Liberty Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus are hosting the hopefuls for speaker at the Capitol Hill Club. It will give Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) a chance to debate issues with the right flank of the party.
...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/the-gavel/2015/10/conservatives-to-hold-forum-for-speaker-candidates-214346

[Brian4Liberty]

I am sure there are many more bad votes he did, but these were the quick easy ones I could find.

From the thread on McCarthy:


Has nothing to do with his voting record. Webster is on record calling for a return to Regular Order in the House (which would be a huge boon for Liberty Republicans and anyone else outside the establishment) and Webster's tenure as Speaker of the House in Florida suggests this is something he genuinely believes in and would carry out. Everyone gets a chance to introduce amendments, bills go through regular committee process, no more continuing resolutions, ect. How Webster votes on individual bills isn't really important.

[The Free Hornet]

Yeah, he's not a liberty Republican, we know that.

He's not a liberty anything. Fuck that guy. And fuck anybody who doesn't know why that matters.

[PierzStyx]

Damn, I had no idea that he was still around. How old is that dude? He must be really ancient.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/DanielWebster.png

He still looks good in his paintings.

[H. E. Panqui]

:rolleyes:

...hopefully someday the republicrat monetary ignoramuses/puppets will figure out that substituting one gd fool republicrat monetary ignoramus/puppet speaker of the house for another won't do a stinking thing!...

....!can't wait to hear the f@cking republican idiots in about 3 months!...whether it's stinking mccarthy, stinking webster, or any other stinker with an 'r' after their name!...

...gd naive fools...

[georgiaboy]

If it's Webster or McCarthy, I'll take the dictionary.

[TaftFan]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/02/report-jason-chaffetz-reportedly-planning-to-challenge-kevin-mccarthy-for-speaker/

Chaffetz is running.

Something tells me he didn't like McCarthy's trashing of the Benghazi committee.

[nobody's_hero]

He's not a liberty anything. Fuck that guy. And fuck anybody who doesn't know why that matters.

I'd love to see a liberty republican get the job, like Amash, but I'm agreement with William Tell:

The best we maybe can hope for is a fair speaker. It would be a huge improvement over John 'the Purge' Boehner who practically had a fetish for kicking people off committees who didn't vote for his shitty bills. Boehner burned a lot of bridges without getting far enough away to avoid the heat.

[William Tell]

He's not a liberty anything. Fuck that guy. And fuck anybody who doesn't know why that matters.

Of course it matters in general. The fact is someone is gonna be speaker, Massie, Amash, etc want someone who will treat them more fair than Boehner did. Its their business to pick a speaker, Ron voted for Gingrich for speaker once, and he knew Newt wasn't liberty.

You can complain all you want, but a pro liberty guy isn't going to be speaker. Of course we all would prefer it if one was.

[vita3]

Thanks to all posters keeping this board focused on best reality pick for new leader of House.

[Brian4Liberty]

McCarthy out, Webster endorsed by the House Freedom Caucus...

[Brian4Liberty]

McCarthy withdraws from speaker race, vote postponed
Published October 08, 2015


House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the front-runner to replace John Boehner, stunned his Republican colleagues on Thursday by withdrawing from the race -- a decision that will postpone the vote for speaker.

Fox News is told McCarthy simply said it was not his time. McCarthy faced opposition from some conservative members and groups, but was thought to have more than enough support to win the party's nomination in the vote initially set for Thursday.

It's unclear what specifically made McCarthy change his mind and drop out.
...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/high-drama-on-capitol-hill-republicans-square-off-in-speaker-vote/

[William Tell]

Well, with McCarthy out we will see how this shapes up. Maybe they can pick someone better after all.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Well, with McCarthy out we will see how this shapes up. Maybe they can pick someone better after all.

Not with Boehner possibly delaying this until he finds someone he thinks will be a successor to him.

[William Tell]

Not with Boehner possibly delaying this until he finds someone he thinks will be a successor to him.

Meh, his successor just dropped out, lol.

Of course he will try to find someone else. But first they said Boehner could never be replaced, then they said McCarthy was a shoe in. Now the aura of invincibility is gone from leadership, sure, they will put up a guy. But people are less likely to vote for a leadership candidate than in the past.

Because many members of congress only supported Boehner out of fear, Massie has made it clear in interviews that there were definitely enough votes to deny Boehner the speakership at the start of the year.

But most of them chickened out at the last minute. They are cowards, but they may find a little courage here, I wouldn't bet on it. But its more likely.

[Lucille]

http://news.yahoo.com/judges-ruling-upends-floridas-political-landscape-073426439--election.html


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — The political careers of several members of Congress — including a Republican seeking to become the next U.S. House speaker — could come to an abrupt halt under a sweeping overhaul of Florida's electoral map.

Florida Circuit Judge Terry Lewis on Friday recommended new boundaries for the state's 27 congressional districts, some of which would make it nearly impossible for U.S. Rep. Dan Webster — one of the hard-line conservatives who pushed John Boehner to resign as speaker and then turned on Boehner's No. 2, Kevin McCarthy — to win re-election from his current central Florida district.
[...]
But one of the most dramatic changes would hurt Webster, who tried at the last minute to intervene in the ongoing lawsuit but was blocked by Lewis. There's nothing that could stop Webster from running in an adjoining and more GOP-friendly district, but he would have to introduce himself to a new set of voters.

Webster, whose maverick bid for speaker has contributed to his party's chaotic attempt to find a successor for Boehner, said in a statement that the ruling was "just another step in the process of finalizing district lines."

"I look forward to this process playing itself out to a final conclusion," said Webster.