# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Rep. Amash and Massie-Only Two to Vote "NO" on North Korea Condemnation

## Spoa

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll045.xml

And now the RINOs at RRH are calling for their primary challenge: 




> This people need primaries
> Rep Justin Amash R-MI & Rep Tom Massie R-KY the only two "No" votes on a resolution condemning North Korea nukes.
> 24, Male, R, NY-10 
> by: MosheM @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:45:48 AM EST


Rep. Amash and Massie had a lot of courage to vote no. I would have rather them vote present, but I respect their vote and hope all will work to get them re-elected in 2014!

----------


## itshappening

What is RRH?  They're welcome to try but they won't get far.

----------


## sailingaway

Principled votes.

Present won't fire up the grass roots the same way, even though it would be not a vote to do it, so I see why you'd think that was ok.  It is nice to see Ron's principles alive in Congress. 

We need to start tracking these guys.  You remember that list Ron had 'never voted for a tax increase....' etc.  We need to have something pithy to put out when they are running.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I'd have a hard time not voting to condemn DPRK.

----------


## Spoa

> I'd have a hard time not voting to condemn DPRK.


I agree. That's why if I was in congress, I'd have voted "present". Present votes are to state that I agree with the message, but I disagree with the substance and strategy. Which I'm sure Reps. Massie and Amash believe in. I doubt they want North Korea shooting missiles near South Korea, but I also believe that they oppose the parts of the bill calling for increased sanctions on North Korea.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree. That's why if I was in congress, I'd have voted "present". Present votes are to state that I agree with the message, but I disagree with the substance and strategy. Which I'm sure Reps. Massie and Amash believe in. I doubt they want North Korea shooting missiles near South Korea, but I also believe that they oppose the parts of the bill calling for increased sanctions on North Korea.


Well, if it were Ron voting on it, it would not just be the sanctions but also getting involved in another country's affairs, officially as government. He'd probably give a speech saying that while he deplores what is happening, his duty is to the American people and it hurts their national security to push into everyone else's affairs or something, imho.

However, Amash and Massie are their own people, so I'll wait for their own explanations.

----------


## Spoa

> Well, if it were Ron voting on it, it would not just be the sanctions but also getting involved in another country's affairs, officially as government. He'd probably give a speech saying that while he deplores what is happening, his duty is to the American people and it hurts their national security to push into everyone else's affairs or something, imho.
> 
> However, Amash and Massie are their own people, so I'll wait for their own explanations.


Agree. The explanation for some reps who voted for this would be that North Korea has publicly threatened the United States, even going so far as to say that when they create their missile, they will use it on us. So technically, it would be an argument in defense of our own nation.

----------


## compromise

Sucks that Bentivolio and Yoho didn't join them, but I understand their decision given how difficult this vote was.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

I would definitely "condemn" North Korea. Perhaps they voted no because the U.N. was mentioned.

----------


## erowe1

Is this the resolution?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.RES.65:




> Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- 
> (1) condemns the Government of North Korea for its flagrant and repeated violations of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, for its repeated provocations that threaten international peace and stability, and for its February 12, 2013, test of a nuclear device;
>  (2) expresses solidarity with the people of North Korea who suffer severe oppression, denial of basic human rights and political liberties, and material deprivation;
>  (3) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its alliances with Japan and South Korea, which are critical for the preservation of peace and stability in Northeast Asia and throughout the region;
>  (4) calls upon the People's Republic of China, North Korea's closest ally and trading partner, to pressure North Korean leaders to curtail their provocative behavior, abandon and dismantle their nuclear and missile programs through the curtailing of vital economic support and trade to North Korea that support the Government of North Korea, and comply with all relevant international agreements and United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions;
>  (5) calls on the People's Republic of China to take immediate actions to prevent the transshipment of illicit technology, military equipment, and dual-use items through its territory, waters, and airspace that could be used in North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs; and
>  (6) calls on the United States Government-- 
> (A) to apply all available sanctions on North Korea, cooperate with United States allies and other countries to impose additional sanctions on North Korea, and secure a new United Nations Security Council resolution imposing stronger sanctions;
>  (B) to utilize aggressively the range of available legal authorities and resources to defend United States interests against North Korean illicit activities; and
>  (C) to support the President's commitment to strengthen the United States ballistic missile defense system to protect the United States.


I'd vote no.

----------


## Confederate

> I'd have a hard time not voting to condemn DPRK.


Me too. Makes no sense to vote no on this.

----------


## James Madison

What purpose does this vote serve?

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> What purpose does this vote serve?


Opinion statement on North Korea and its regime.

----------


## Spoa

> What purpose does this vote serve?


None really. It isn't a sanction, it just states that the United States hopes North Korea will stop making and using missiles.

----------


## erowe1

> Me too. Makes no sense to vote no on this.


So you agree that the US government should do all the things the resolution says it should do in what I copied and pasted in post 10?

----------


## erowe1

> None really. It isn't a sanction, it just states that the United States hopes North Korea will stop making and using missiles.


No it doesn't. It resolves to act in certain ways toward that hope. It isn't a sanction itself, but it calls for sanctions.

The Declaration of Independence was "just a resolution."

----------


## James Madison

> Opinion statement on North Korea and its regime.


So, why have a vote? What purpose does this serve other to antagonize NK?

----------


## Confederate

> So you agree that the US government should do all the things the resolution says it should do in what I copied and pasted in post 10?


I didn't say they had to vote yes. Present would have been better. Anyway, a resolution has no legal force and all those things are already done by treaty/law.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So you agree that the US government should do all the things the resolution says it should do in what I copied and pasted in post 10?


Have you forgotten where you are? Of course they do. I would have voted no as well.

----------


## erowe1

> I didn't say they had to vote yes. Present would have been better. Anyway, a resolution has no legal force and all those things are already done by treaty/law.


I don't see why present would have been better. The question is, do you agree with this resolution. And the correct answer is no.

----------


## kathy88

Why doesn't everyone just wait. They both are very good at explaining their votes.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Damn. Amash looks better every vote.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Solid vote

----------


## supermario21

These resolutions are useless. I wish Amash or Massie would just get up there and say "Why are we wasting our time on this?"

----------


## tsai3904

Amash's explanation:




> I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H Res 65, which expresses the House's condemnation of North Korea for its recent nuclear test and the House's support for maintaining an isolationist foreign policy toward North Korea, a country that has conducted three provocative nuclear tests within the last decade with this failed U.S. policy in place.
> 
> The nonbinding resolution includes many congressional findings related to the government of North Korea's hostile activities in its region, and it condemns North Korea for its repeated violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions and its nuclear test of February 12, 2013.
> 
> The resolution also expresses the House's support of, and actively calls for, retaliatory measures against North Korea. Among other things, the resolution calls on the U.S. government to "apply all available sanctions on North Korea, cooperate with United States allies and other countries to impose additional sanctions on North Korea, and secure a new United Nations Security Council resolution imposing stronger sanctions." Given that nearly all possible sanctions have already been imposed on North Korea, the resolution's call for further measures amounts to almost nothing.
> 
> I join my colleagues in condemning North Korea for its provocative and hostile actions toward the United States and our allies, and its open violation of its commitments to the United States and the international community. North Korea is one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world, yet there no evidence North Korea is retreating from its nuclear program or working to end hostilities with South Korea. The sanctions have proved ineffective for decades at stopping the country's nuclear buildup and have served mostly to impoverish and starve the people of North Korea, making them more dependent on their dictator.
> 
> It will take genuine, serious engagement from the United States and the international community to normalize relations and continue peacefully toward the goal of a nuclear weapons-free North Korea. I do not support calling for further sanctions and isolationism, which will escalate tensions, not reduce them, and will make it more difficult for the people of North Korea to stand up for themselves against this brutal regime.
> ...


http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...13593472013397

----------


## V3n

How is it our government's job to condemn or to edify another sovereign nation?  
I vote "NO" because it's not our government's business and it's a waste of taxpayer money to even hold this vote!

----------


## tsai3904

> How is it our government's job to condemn or to edify another sovereign nation?  
> I vote "NO" because it's not our government's business and it's a waste of taxpayer money to even hold this vote!


There is an argument that this is the government's business because North Korea has threatened us.  Obviously, we provoke them and no one here is scared of them but in this case, I don't see anything wrong with condemning them.  There is a problem with calling for more sanctions though.

----------


## V3n

OK.. if that is the resolution listed above, I'd probably say "YES" to the first 3 provisions. 4,5, and 6 would have to be a "NO".  Therefore, my vote remains a "NO".

But I see your point.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

What happened to de-escalation as a principle?
Thanks Amash & Massie for standing tall.

----------


## tsai3904

> What happened to de-escalation as a principle?


Yea I agree with that principle and I wouldn't have voted for the resolution.  Even tho Amash voted against the resolution, he still openly condemned North Korea and I don't see anything wrong with that.

----------


## thoughtomator

The plain truth is that it makes sense for every country that the US is not friendly with to acquire nukes, as long as we maintain our "dominate the globe, invade who we please" military posture. I can condemn North Korea's totalitarianism, but I can't condemn a nation for defending itself.

----------


## QuickZ06

> The plain truth is that it makes sense for every country that the US is not friendly with to acquire nukes, as long as we maintain our "dominate the globe, invade who we please" military posture. I can condemn North Korea's totalitarianism, but I can't condemn a nation for defending itself.


Agreed, great votes I would have stood tall with them. Principles over party.

----------


## Brett85

So is this an issue Amash has changed his mind on?  Hasn't he voted in favor of sanctions in the past?

----------


## BSU kid

Looks like Kerry Bentivolio continues to prove he is an establishment Republican.

----------


## CTRattlesnake

> I'd have a hard time not voting to condemn DPRK.



Its not our business to 'condemn' other countries half way around the world.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Its not our business to 'condemn' other countries half way around the world.


Personally, I condemn all governments around the world for their very nature. DPRK shoots right to the top of the list with how they treat political prisoners by sending them to gulags. I'll condemn the $#@! out of that all the while the elites live on easy street in Pyongyang at the expense of the rest of the country.

----------

