# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Did J. Amash vote for CISPA? [Mod note: No]

## RonRocks

So he voted for the procedural motion, added an amendment limiting it(which may be worthless), then voted against the bill.

----------


## 40oz

No he didn't. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml#N

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No he didn't. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml#N


Thank you for the confirmation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

No he didn't, but Chaffetz did.  So wrong.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

And some people here said we should support Jeff Flake lololololololol

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Amash is one of the few (5 out of 535) good guys.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Amash is one of the few (5 out of 535) good guys.

----------


## ProIndividual

> No he didn't, but Chaffetz did.  So wrong.


Then he's sealed his own fate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Amash is one of the few (5 out of 535) good guys.



There can be 6 if we fund the right candidate!

----------


## RonRocks

This was my source http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll183.xml  Looks like it was voted on earlier in the day, but I may be wrong..

----------


## brandon

> This was my source http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll183.xml  Looks like it was voted on earlier in the day, but I may be wrong..


That vote was a procedural one. Amash always votes with his party on procedural issues. Not sure why.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This was my source http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll183.xml  Looks like it was voted on earlier in the day, but I may be wrong..


That one, which basically all the republicans voted for, including Amash, may have been a procedural vote ("providing for consideration of the bill") allowing it to come to the floor and even be considered, and the other vote, in which Amash voted no, was the vote on actually passing the bill.

Just an idea.

----------


## frodus24

From what I heard, the voting was rushed through rather quickly.

----------


## V3n

This title is confusing to someone who just reads the title and doesn't open.

Maybe a better title is: "Did J.Amash vote for CISPA?" or "J.Amash didn't vote for CISPA"

??

----------


## tfurrh

> This title is confusing to someone who just reads the title and doesn't open.
> 
> Maybe a better title is: "Did J.Amash vote for CISPA?" or "J.Amash didn't vote for CISPA"
> 
> ??


QFT

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> That vote was a procedural one. Amash always votes with his party on procedural issues. Not sure why.


No $#@!. If the 28 Republicans who voted against the bill also voted against the procedural motion, it would have thrown sand in the gears, shot down the motion, and probably made headlines of some sort.

Walter Jones was the only one who saw fit to vote against both the procedural motion and the actual bill itself.

But yeah, Amash got to make his stand by adding a worthless amendment that restricts searches to PATRIOT Act parameters (the executive branch takes the PATRIOT Act to mean it can look at anything for any reason, so this amendment literally does nothing) and symbolically vote against sure passage of the bill.

4 liburty!!!!11!

Screw politics, waste of time, energy, and intellectual focus.

----------


## sailingaway

he absolutely did not.  He sponsored an amendment to limit it slightly, which passed, then he voted against the bill.

----------


## sailingaway

> No $#@!. If the 28 Republicans who voted against the bill also voted against the procedural motion, it would have thrown sand in the gears, shot down the motion, and probably made headlines of some sort.
> 
> Walter Jones was the only one who saw fit to vote against both the procedural motion and the actual bill itself.
> 
> But yeah, Amash got to make his stand by adding a worthless amendment that restricts searches to PATRIOT Act parameters (the executive branch takes the PATRIOT Act to mean it can look at anything for any reason, so this amendment literally does nothing) and symbolically vote against sure passage of the bill.
> 
> 4 liburty!!!!11!
> 
> Screw politics, waste of time, energy, and intellectual focus.


did he do that again? He did the same thing with the Patriot Act.  It is the reason I had questions about him.  Hm.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> he absolutely did not.  He sponsored an amendment to limit it slightly, which passed, then he voted against the bill.


He limited it to the same restrictions placed on the PATRIOT Act, and we all know how much restriction the executive branch places on itself concerning search and seizure - zero. And it passed 415-0, that alone should tell everyone it's entirely toothless.

It was a complete waste of time to offer such an amendment, and it really makes me wonder what the hell Amash is doing. If he is that gullible, he's useless, and if he knows better, it was nothing but posturing. Either way, I'm not going to give him a high five for it.

Don't mean to rant at you, I'm just kind of venting in general.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

When we do crooked procedure in the NC House, I always vote against it.  It's not that hard.  Makes the leadership hate you, but oh well.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> When we do crooked procedure in the NC House, I always vote against it.  It's not that hard.  Makes the leadership hate you, but oh well.


Who cares what the 'Leadership' thinks. Good on you Gunny. You keep that flame of faith in humanity alive for me; so easy to just let em' all kill and pillage themselves and run off to the future (hopefully) liberty enclave in NH.

----------


## lib3rtarian

> He limited it to the same restrictions placed on the PATRIOT Act, and we all know how much restriction the executive branch places on itself concerning search and seizure - zero. And it passed 415-0, that alone should tell everyone it's entirely toothless.
> 
> It was a complete waste of time to offer such an amendment, and it really makes me wonder what the hell Amash is doing. If he is that gullible, he's useless, and if he knows better, it was nothing but posturing. Either way, I'm not going to give him a high five for it.
> 
> Don't mean to rant at you, I'm just kind of venting in general.


Damn. And I was thinking Amash pulled off a coup with that amendment. I was giving him kudos on FB yesterday. You are right. If a bill or amendment passes the House 415-0, then that alone is proof that either the bill/amendment is utterly evil or completely useless.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

I hate threads like this. Some people don't even read past the first post and make their own decisions based on that.

----------


## RonRocks

> I hate threads like this. Some people don't even read past the first post and make their own decisions based on that.


I tried to improve it and summarize it in the first post.  Thanks for the explanation everyone.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I tried to improve it and summarize it in the first post.  Thanks for the explanation everyone.


Thanks.

----------


## anaconda

> Amash is one of the few (5 out of 535) good guys.


Walter Jones, Rand, Ron, Amash, Mike Lee? Or is your list of 5 different? Lee endorsed Romney and Jones has a necon history. I usually include Kucinich as a "good guy."

----------


## sonofshamwow

The level of ignorance in this thread about Amash's procedural vote and what his amendment did to CISPA is stunning, and it serves only to HURT THE ONLY LIBERTY REPRESENTATIVE in the House after 2012.

First, Amash has explained on his Facebook page that he follows his party on procedural votes because those votes are arbitrary anyway. Procedural votes are about how much time will be given to debate the bill, whether amendments will be allowed, how many amendments will be allowed, etc. Even if the procedural vote fails, it's not like the substantive vote goes away. In fact, the most likely result is that the substantive vote comes to the floor with NO debate or NO amendment instead. If leadership wants a substantive vote on a bill like CISPA, they will get that vote regardless of what procedural rules are applied to it.

Second, Abcess wrongly claims that Amash's amendment "is worthless" because it merely "restricts searches to PATRIOT Act parameters." That's just false. Amash's amendment goes FURTHER than the Patriot Act in protecting our rights. Amash's amendment makes it IMPOSSIBLE under ANY circumstances for the personal records listed in his amendment to be accessed by the government in relation to cyber terrorism. The Patriot Act ALLOWS ACCESS to these records if certain procedures are followed.

Third, RON PAUL CO-SPONSORED AMASH'S AMENDMENT. That alone should hopefully convince some of the people on here about the legitimacy of the amendment.

Finally, threads like this, whose titles and unsubstantiated claims lead RP supporters to think that Amash is anything other than a hero for liberty are damaging to everything this forum stands for. Ron Paul has REPEATEDLY said that Amash is the one person in Congress he trusts and agrees with the most. RP endorsed Amash and Amash endorsed RP. Don't be so quick to throw the one remaining figure for liberty in the House we have left under the bus. The man is fighting the good fight every day FOR THE THINGS YOU GUYS BELIEVE IN, and yet I see certain people on here consistently attacking and criticizing him WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS. I'm all for holding someone's feet to the fire, but don't do it when you don't know what you're talking about.

The current thread title should be changed so that people casually reading it don't think that Amash voted for CISPA. He didn't. He didn't come close to it. So why put that idea in people's heads?

----------


## sonofshamwow

http://www.michigancapitolconfidenti...6835&print=yes




> In a press release, Rep. Amash, who voted against the bill, explained: “The government shouldn’t be allowed to spy on the books Americans read or the guns they buy ... We can’t sacrifice core civil liberties in the name of cybersecurity.” He also noted that the bill’s definition of “cyber threat information” is “a term that is defined broadly.”
> 
> Will Adams, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Amash, says the congressman opposes CISPA, but the amendments to the bill temper somewhat the concerns over privacy issues.
> 
> “At the very least, the amendments are a common-sense narrowing of the original bill’s waiver provided private companies from all state and federal liabilities if they share private information with the government,” he said in a phone interview. “CISPA as written took an ax to privacy laws, when Rep. Amash would much rather prefer a scalpel.”
> 
> Adams said Rep. Roger’s bill would grant the government the ability to do anything it wished with the information obtained through CISPA. “CISPA is a flawed bill,” he said, “because private information that is protected currently by state and federal laws wouldn’t be exempted, and CISPA could’ve been employed to override those constraints. The amendments limit what government can do with this information.”
> 
> Adams says, “Folks say you need a broad exemption for CISPA to be viable, but our view is reasonable in that they address the privacy impediments and how we can fix them.”
> ...

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

+rep sonofshamwow

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Second, Abcess wrongly claims that Amash's amendment "is worthless" because it merely "restricts searches to PATRIOT Act parameters." That's just false. Amash's amendment goes FURTHER than the Patriot Act in protecting our rights. *Amash's amendment makes it IMPOSSIBLE under ANY circumstances for the personal records listed in his amendment to be accessed by the government in relation to cyber terrorism*. The Patriot Act ALLOWS ACCESS to these records if certain procedures are followed.


Those are some rosy-colored glasses. If the effing Constitution won't stop the government from doing something, how will a minor amendment to a huge bill do anything to protect us? There are numerous federal bans on federally funding abortion, yet it still happens. I could list tons of crap.

It's cool that you're an enthusiastic supporter, but rather than defending Amash, defend freedom.

----------


## Hyperion

> No he didn't, but Chaffetz did.  So wrong.


Extremely disappointing. Chaffetz is usually solid.

----------


## Hyperion

> Walter Jones, Rand, Ron, Amash, Mike Lee? Or is your list of 5 different? Lee endorsed Romney and Jones has a necon history. I usually include Kucinich as a "good guy."


Congressman Schweikert from Arizona is really good. Tom McClintock and Joe Walsh usually side with us as well.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> Those are some rosy-colored glasses. If the effing Constitution won't stop the government from doing something, how will a minor amendment to a huge bill do anything to protect us? There are numerous federal bans on federally funding abortion, yet it still happens. I could list tons of crap.
> 
> It's cool that you're an enthusiastic supporter, but rather than defending Amash, defend freedom.


I defend freedom by defending the people who are fighting for it every day, like Congressman Amash.

If your attitude is just that the government is always going to ignore the Constitution no matter what laws are in place, would you prefer that representatives like Amash, Ron Paul, or Rand Paul just stop trying altogether?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I defend freedom by defending the people who are fighting for it every day, like Congressman Amash.
> 
> If your attitude is just that the government is always going to ignore the Constitution no matter what laws are in place, would you prefer that representatives like Amash, Ron Paul, or Rand Paul just stop trying altogether?


We could push them to be spokesmen for liberty above being procedural liberty advocates. So far, only Ron is a spokesman.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> We could push them to be spokesmen for liberty above being procedural liberty advocates. So far, only Ron is a spokesman.


Amash gives a liberty-based reason for every substantive vote he takes on the House floor to thousands of people on Facebook. His perspective gets shared to hundreds of thousands of people on social media on a daily basis. Amash is viewed as the _leader_ of the movement against the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions. He was one of the most publicly outspoken critics of the war in Libya. That's not enough of being a spokesman for liberty for you? He only got elected to office in 2010 and he just turned 32 years old.

And, like I said, there is no "liberty" position on procedural votes. There is no "liberty-basis" for allowing amendments or not, or giving 1 hour of debate instead of 3 hours of debate.

----------


## angelatc

> Those are some rosy-colored glasses. If the effing Constitution won't stop the government from doing something, how will a minor amendment to a huge bill do anything to protect us? There are numerous federal bans on federally funding abortion, yet it still happens. I could list tons of crap.
> 
> It's cool that you're an enthusiastic supporter, but rather than defending Amash, defend freedom.


So, you are now attacking the poster because Justin Amash can't single-handedly control every action that the House takes.    Just stop.  Like it or not, the House has a Constitutional right to vote on legislation.

----------

