# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash votes "no" to prohibition of Dept. of Defense NASCAR ads; Paul votes "yes"

## malkusm

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll090.xml

From Amash's Facebook:




> Here's the roll call for Amend. 50, which prohibits the Dep't of Defense from buying NASCAR ads. This amendment doesn't remove any line-item appropriation. It doesn't cut any funding. Instead, it singles out NASCAR as the ONLY entity ineligible for ads. The Constitution authorizes DoD to advertise, and the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. I voted no. It failed 148-281.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I'm liking Justin Amash.  He is principled, even when it scares some people.  He will use this as an opportunity to introduce a bill to ban any DOD advertising or something..

----------


## malkusm

I asked the following - we'll see if he responds:




> Justin, quick questions - (1) Do you think it is proper for the DoD to advertise via NASCAR? (2) If not, this would be a similar situation to your Planned Parenthood vote, where you voted "Present" - correct? i.e. "I agree with the intended purpose of the bill but found that targeting a specific organization is contrary to the Rule of Law."

----------


## TheDriver

I'd go with Amash on this one, as I want to keep an all volunteer force. If we implement a draft (which I would oppose), then I would vote to cut it!

----------


## malkusm

He responded to my question:




> Matthew, I do not think it is improper for DoD to advertise via NASCAR. We can still debate whether DoD should advertise more or less. That makes this vote different from the Planned Parenthood vote, where I unequivocally supported defunding that organization but had procedural/constitutional concerns about the amendment.


I'm satisfied.

----------


## Cowlesy

> He responded to my question:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm satisfied.


Hah, I can't even get a response from my Congressman's office.  Amash responds to any citizen with a legitimate question personally and quickly.

----------


## TheDriver

> Hah, I can't even get a response from my Congressman's office.  Amash responds to any citizen with a legitimate question personally and quickly.


qft

----------


## Baptist

I was one of the ones that raised concerns about Amash because I was not sure about his foreign policy.  However, this dude has been straight up awesome.  I agree with his votes and statements regarding PP and DOD/Nascar

----------


## ChrisDixon

I have been very impressed with Justin Amash's communication on Facebook and his willingness to directly communicate with everyone. He explains his votes, which shows he doesn't have anything to hide. I think we'll see good things from him in the future.

----------


## dannno

Ok so why did Ron Paul for the other way, does he just have it out for the DoD

----------


## dannno

> Ok so why did Ron Paul for the other way, does he just have it out for the DoD


bump

----------


## enrique

Smetimes people vote the wrong way or use different principles when voting. In think you'd have to see Ron Paul's response to know why he voted to not allow the DoD advertise on NASCAR. Would it be ok to advertise on cereal boxes or tv instead?

I think they just looked at things differently or maybe look at legislation (what's proper and what's not) with a different focus.

----------


## malkusm

Ron uses a more absolutist approach - basically, he figures that the more restrictions we can put on spending, the better, due to the spending problem in Washington. Amash tends to cede the point that the specific legislation at hand, while it might go against his wishes for what Congress WOULD do with the money, might be completely Constitutional.

I don't mind the two voting differently on things like this, because they are both voting with the right goals in mind, and will ultimately vote the same way on the "big issues."

----------


## jmdrake

> Hah, I can't even get a response from my Congressman's office.  Amash responds to any citizen with a legitimate question personally and quickly.


I get responses from my congressman/senators.  But it's always a "I know better than you now hear my canned response on this issue" response.

----------


## Elwar

> Ok so why did Ron Paul for the other way, does he just have it out for the DoD


Ron Paul voted for less spending. That's what he always votes for. 

As he always says...he's all for comprimise as long as it's in the direction of less government.

Amash's vote is understandable in that it's like saying that the government can buy hamburgers from everyone except for Burger King. It unfairly plays favorites and the bigger question is, should the government be buying hamburgers at all.  Ron Paul would be ok with voting down each burger joint one by one until there are none left to buy from.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> Ron Paul voted for less spending. That's what he always votes for.
> 
> As he always says...he's all for comprimise as long as it's in the direction of less government.


1. As Amash points out in his Facebook post on the topic, this bill did NOT cut funding to the DoD in any way.

2. Government picking winners and losers (in this case, NASCAR) is a big government philosophy and is one of the worst ways government intrudes into our lives.  There should be no compromise on it.

----------


## Brett85

> Hah, I can't even get a response from my Congressman's office.  Amash responds to any citizen with a legitimate question personally and quickly.


Yeah, Justin is awesome.  I've called my Congressman three times and emailed him twice and never got any response.  I think I'll just write in my own name on the ballot the next time he runs.

----------

