top of page

Justin Amash is wrong on impeachment, but he's right about the Republican Party

Updated: Aug 20, 2019

On the natural propensity to create political parties-

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

-George Washington

On July 4th, Representative Justin Amash declared independence from the Republican Party. In his op-ed in the Washington Post, Amash lined out the reasons his family moved to America, as well as praising the ideology represented in the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

He also brought up George Washington's farewell address. In Washington's farewell, he speaks of the dangers of political partisanship. Washington said that it is a human instinct to separate into factions, but that that nature, unchecked, was the worst enemy of the public's liberty.


I'm going to start by saying that I do not agree with Rep. Amash on his recommendation of impeachment for Donald Trump. I have yet to read hard evidence that there was a crime committed, or that an obstruction took place. Furthermore, I have a hard time pursuing obstruction in the event that there is no crime being investigated. In an investigation, a crime has taken place, and it is the job of the investigators to uncover the details of this crime. In the case of Donald Trump, however, the investigation took place took place to discover if there was a crime at all. This is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in such a heated political environment. As a Libertarian, I cannot imagine allowing the police to enter my home under the guise of finding out if I have committed any crimes. My propensity to keep them from performing such an act should not be considered "obstruction."


I'm not a "Never-trumper," but I am also not an "Always-Trumper." Each of those political categories are equally dangerous for the future of America. In the time I've been running the Good Morning Liberty facebook page, I have made it a point to support Trump when he does something that is a "win" for liberty, and I have also made it a point to call him out when he does something that is a "loss" for liberty. There is and never will be a man or woman that executes the job perfectly. Therefore, I do not see it as a dangerous act to assume that Trump can do things that are not perfect.

One thing I've noticed in the year since starting this page, is that President Trump has inspired a true "Cult-Like" following. I'm working with a small statistical sample, but I have seen more than enough supporters that have completely jettisoned the traditional values of the Republican Party, and of Conservatism in general.

When I was growing up, I had differing views of the Democrat, and Republican Parties. From what I could tell, a Conservative Republican stood for The Constitution, the Founding Fathers, a limited government, and a principled/non-emotional approach to the previous three as well as an unregulated economy.

During the Tea Party movement, I remember "fiscal conservatism" being a major role in the election discussions. Listening to radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck, I learned to care about the constitutionality of each member of congress. There was even talk of a legislators "Constitutional Scorecard" as a guide for learning which members were doing their job, which arguably is to legislate within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.

For a long time, Republicans have brought up the Constitution to argue for smaller government, and a move towards "liberty," not "tyranny."

Why is this so important?

I think it's time for the Republican Party to restate what it stands for. What does it mean to be a Republican, a Conservative, a Conservative Republican, etc.? What I have seen posted by "Republicans" has been nothing short of any myriad of terrible examples from world history. Yes, I'm bringing up Germany, Russia, China, and ironically even Great Britain loyalists during the American Revolution. It's tyrannical, tribal, and downright dangerous. The current rhetoric spewed by many Republicans has nothing to do with the constitution. In fact, it's in direct opposition to the ideas that created this country in the first place.

There should never be an allegiance to one man, or one political party. There is either an allegiance to one party, or there is an allegiance to the ideology that created constitution, but there is not both. There will not be both, because a political party may do things in direct contradiction to the Constitution, as all political parties have done. A politician, especially the Chief of the Executive Branch, may do things in direct contradiction to the Constitution. This, therefor, means that you did not have an allegiance to the Constitution while practicing your allegiance to the party, or the man.

This is why Justin Amash brought up George Washington's farewell address. Even in the late 1700's among all the amazing ideas those gentleman came up with, one of them was that the human nature to tilt towards partisan politics will eventually lead to tyranny.

If you say you support the Constitution..

If you say you support the U.S. Constitution above all else, who do you want holding our political offices? Surely, you will chose those that have a strong record of voting in accordance with the Constitution itself, or will you?

FreedomWorks Congressional Scorecard Top 5 (Those voting in accordance with the Constitution)

  1. Chip Roy - 100%

  2. Lance Gooden - 100%

  3. Justin Amash - 100%

  4. Michael Cloud - 100%

  5. Tim Burchett - 100%

The "Freedom Index" Constitutional Scorecard

  1. Thomas Massie - 99%

  2. Rand Paul - 94%

  3. Justin Amash - 94%

  4. Mike Lee - 92%

  5. Andy Biggs - 90%

The John Birch Society

  1. Thomas Massie - 99%

  2. Rand Paul - 94%

  3. Justin Amash - 94%

  4. Mike Lee - 92%

  5. Andy Biggs - 90%

Conservative Review

  1. Andy Biggs - 100%

  2. Chip Roy - 100%

  3. Thomas Massie - 98%

  4. Paul Gosar - 96%

  5. Warren Davidson - 94%

  6. Justin Amash - 92%

I'm sure you see a recurring theme in these congressional scorecards. Justin Amash is routinely in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. That's why I've always liked him. Why would a political party, whose mission is to support constitutionality, no longer be the place for a legislator who is so constitutional? Better yet, why do so many people within that political party have extreme hatred and discontent for Amash?

What is it that Republicans believe in? I mean that question, it is not purely rhetorical. To me, it seems like the Republican Party stands for an unwavering allegiance to the Republican President. Ask yourself this question, to the truest extent possible, would the founders of America be unwaveringly allegiant to a political figure? Would they call for someone to be "hung on the White House lawn" for going after the President? What would George Washington say about your blind hatred for someone that calls out your party's inconsistencies?

I'm asking for a Republican to answer the recurring theme/question in this article

What is a conservative republican?

If it's someone who supports all republicans, regardless of what they do, then Justin Amash is not your guy.

If a Conservative Republican is someone who wants to protect the ideology of the Founding Father's, and make laws that are within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, then maybe you should check your principles before suggesting that America will be better off when Justin Amash is out of office. Your political leader will be better off, not American Citizens.

When Trump is either beaten in 2 years, or leaves office in 6- you will wish you still had a guy like Justin Amash in office to fight against the rise of Socialism.