Why I will continue to support Justin AmashSubmitted by David A Dudenhoefer on Tue, 05/29/2012 - 14:05
I have read the recent arguments concerning H.R. 4133 and Rep. Amash's "yes" vote. First, let me state that I would take 433 more Justin Amash's save himself and Ron Paul. I spoke with his office just a short time ago, to get a deeper explanation.
Justin has reconsidered his yes vote to be sure, so in addition to the comments left by his supporters, he had a tough time with this vote. While the explanation he gave in support was based on his logic behind and understanding of our constitution, the loan program within the text was his sticking point and ultimately was the reason for his reconsideration. This was a program started by the Bush administration and has, in his view, evolved past its intended purpose. It has become an unlimited line of credit that needs to end.
The argument that this bill is unconstitutional I guess would depend on how you interpret the bill. "To reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." Does this mean we recognize her right to exist or that we will commit our military in defending her right to exist? For me, I need not look any further than the word "policy",which is stated further in the bill. When anything becomes U.S. policy it includes our military to enforce it. This is where I would differ. Is it our role to defend the religion of another nation? Define a Jewish state? Is Michigan for example, a christian state? Do we not have other individuals of different faiths residing in this state?
All that stated, I still support rep. Amash, for the reasons we supported him from the beginning, I can still count on his consistency in being open and transparent, I can count on him to be human and err, and to recognize a mistake and correct it, which he does and will continue to do. If your looking for a clone of Ron Paul you are fooling only yourself, no one will ever agree 100% of the time on anything. Furthermore, I can show you where Dr. Paul voted yes on bills that may have been constitutional, but in a small part were bad policy. Sort of the 80-20 rule.
Below is a recent expample, Paul voted YES, Justin Voted present.
HR 1938: On Passage
voted present on H R 1938, N. American-Made Energy Security Act. It requires EPA to approve or disapprove the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline w/in 30 days. I support EPA acting quickly, and holding this up for political reasons is wrong. But it’s improper for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private company, while allowing EPA to treat similar companies differently. It passed 279-147-1.
Second Session- Roll Call #71
HR 3408: On Passage
Here's the roll call for H R 3408, Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security (PIONEERS) Act. The bill requires the federal government to approve permits for the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The federal government also must streamline the permit process for oil shale development on public land and for drilling on the continental shelf and in Alaska.
Congress should not write bills that target one individual or corporation for special benefits or punishment. Based on that principle, I voted "present" when the Keystone XL pipeline was brought to a vote as a stand-alone bill. The Keystone XL pipeline is just one part of this larger bill, and it forces me to weigh my support for Americans' use of our domestic energy resources against my opposition to the way one part of the bill is written. I registered my dissent against the Keystone part of the bill when I voted on the stand-alone bill last year. On this larger bill, I voted "yes." It passed 237-187.
I agree that we stay engaged of course, and critical, and he obviously listens...but let's not throw Justin to the dogs over this.