If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Strict constitutionalist, Rep. Justin Amash (R-ON PAUL 2.0), is one of only two votes against reauthorizing National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Well, at least he is consistent   (thehill.com) divider line 33
    More: Interesting, national center for missing, Justin Amash, Organization of American States, missing children, reauthorization, sex trafficking, roll call vote  
•       •       •

827 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 8:01 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-18 08:07:47 AM
Consistent and he doesn't want anyone looking in his basement.
 
2013-09-18 08:07:57 AM
Would have voted for it but it lacked langue defunding Obama Care
 
2013-09-18 08:10:42 AM
ron paul isn't in the constitution
 
2013-09-18 08:14:29 AM
My farking rep.
Lovely.
/Would wishing his child go missing be too much?
 
2013-09-18 08:19:49 AM
Yes, but he was also against bombing Syria and against prosecuting Edward Snowden.

Amash ain't ALL bad.
 
2013-09-18 08:20:59 AM

doczoidberg: Yes, but he was also against bombing Syria and against prosecuting Edward Snowden.

Amash ain't ALL bad.


Nobody ever is, but to take a stand against kidnapped kids? WTH?!?
 
2013-09-18 08:22:08 AM
That's sad, because children are in the Constitution.
 
2013-09-18 08:26:24 AM

sprawl15: ron paul isn't in the constitution


But what about RON PUAL!?
 
2013-09-18 08:27:56 AM

sprawl15: ron paul isn't in the constitution


That's what has always struck me as odd about "strict Constitutionalists." Many of them are from districts and states that didn't exist (or were part of Mexico) when the Constitution was written.

Pretty sure if we limited government to "only what is in the Constitution," we'd still have 13 stars on the flag.

/also, those idiots wouldn't have any health benefits or pensions
//I'd be okay with that part
 
2013-09-18 08:27:59 AM
If you want to get your abducted child back, you should have worked harder so you could afford a private investigator.
 
2013-09-18 08:31:22 AM

clkeagle: Pretty sure if we limited government to "only what is in the Constitution," we'd still have 13 stars on the flag.


Hmmm... I think there's a section in there on the admittance of new states.
 
2013-09-18 08:35:55 AM
Strict constitutionalist State's Rights Christian Conservative Republican
 
2013-09-18 08:47:39 AM
The Bill of Rights wasn't in the Constitution originally. How does he feel about it being tinkered with?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 08:50:44 AM
Does he believe in corporate rights?  If so, not a strict constitutionalist.  There is actually no such thing right now.
 
2013-09-18 09:10:47 AM
And let's make sure Paul Broun (R-GA) doesn't escape infamy either.
 
2013-09-18 09:12:27 AM
There is no such thing as a strict constitutionalist, what you have are "selective constitutionalists" who will say the constitution is inviolable when it matches what their biases are and ignore it when it doesn't.
 
2013-09-18 09:12:37 AM

Im_Gumby: doczoidberg: Yes, but he was also against bombing Syria and against prosecuting Edward Snowden.

Amash ain't ALL bad.

Nobody ever is, but to take a stand against kidnapped kids? WTH?!?


That's because he is a mainstream Republican, and All Republicans stop caring about human life once the human in question is born. Which means they  never care about human life.
 
2013-09-18 09:21:37 AM

RminusQ: And let's make sure Paul Broun (R-GA) doesn't escape infamy either.


After his steroid thing, I'd hope not.
 
2013-09-18 09:22:48 AM
Well, any agency that helps missing and exploited children should either be created at the state level, or privatized.  Because children are never moved over state lines when they're missing, and the capitalist model would work perfectly in this case.  Industry can solve this one, and make a profit in the process!
 
2013-09-18 09:23:05 AM
In his defense; what do children have to do with national defense? That is all he seems to feel the fed should be doing. Anything else in his eyes appears to be an intrusion on our rights.
 
2013-09-18 09:28:00 AM

RminusQ: And let's make sure Paul Broun (R-GA) doesn't escape infamy either.


Plenty of people here would like nothing more than to see Paul Broun go missing, and never be heard from again.
 
2013-09-18 09:58:41 AM
Kids are only important when in the womb. Once out they are given bootstraps and a pat on the butt.
 
2013-09-18 10:15:44 AM
Was Glen Beck the other dissenting vote?
 
2013-09-18 10:17:35 AM

The Name: If you want to get your abducted child back, you should have worked harder so you could afford a private investigator.


Republicans actually think that way.

Amazingly, many of them call themselves Christians, too.
 
2013-09-18 10:31:45 AM

clkeagle: sprawl15: ron paul isn't in the constitution

That's what has always struck me as odd about "strict Constitutionalists." Many of them are from districts and states that didn't exist (or were part of Mexico) when the Constitution was written.

Pretty sure if we limited government to "only what is in the Constitution," we'd still have 13 stars on the flag.

/also, those idiots wouldn't have any health benefits or pensions
//I'd be okay with that part


Article 4, Section 3...
 
2013-09-18 10:33:36 AM
Interested in why he voted no. Sounds more like a protest vote than any real opposition.
 
2013-09-18 11:08:46 AM

EWreckedSean: Interested in why he voted no. Sounds more like a protest vote than any real opposition.


Doesn't look like this vote is up yet, but he explains every single vote he casts on his FB page, so one should be forthcoming.
 
2013-09-18 11:28:15 AM
With the Bill of Rights, the FFs did an amazing job to make sure that the Constitution is a living document that can be changed when deemed necessary. It has been used for bad (prohibition) and good (slavery, civil rights) but I personally don't think it was ever meant as an infalliable document.

These folks just use the constitution as cover because they are miserable little pricks.
 
2013-09-18 11:40:19 AM

Churchill2004: EWreckedSean: Interested in why he voted no. Sounds more like a protest vote than any real opposition.

Doesn't look like this vote is up yet, but he explains every single vote he casts on his FB page, so one should be forthcoming.


Yeah, he's about 2 months behind on his vote explanations, but it will be interesting to read when he puts it out.

My guess is he will argue that it can be handled without a federal level agency.  He tends to use that reasoning pretty regularly on similar type of issues.  (Not saying I agree with that assessment)
 
2013-09-18 12:55:52 PM
Policies on exploited children should be left to the free market to sort out.
 
2013-09-18 01:08:18 PM
Why are your kidnapped children such lazy welfare queens? They should use their bootstraps to escape from their kidnappers. Stop expecting government handouts, kidnapped children!
 
2013-09-18 01:29:43 PM

The Name: If you want to get your abducted child back, you should have worked harder so you could afford a private investigator.


Or be real boot strappy and do it yourself Liam Neeson-style, right? Time to acquire a very particular set of skills
 
2013-09-18 01:46:52 PM

bmongar: Consistent and he doesn't want anyone looking in his basement.


 "I always wondered about Jesse's collection of little shoes." -Bill Hicks
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report