sonofshamwow
02-28-2011, 07:48 PM
Two votes from today from Amash's facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash)
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/187100591329355
just voted no on H R 347, which, among other things, makes it easier to criminally prosecute a person who enters an area occupied by certain government officials. This bill is so broad that if the Speaker of the House visits a McDonald's, and they shut down the place for him (or her) but forget to lock the door, and you enter, you can go to prison for up to 10 years. No intent to harm required. The bill passed 399-3.
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/187102134662534
just voted no on H R 368, which slightly broadens (clarifies) the circumstances under which a federal officer or agency may remove a case to federal court when sued. Current law already permits removal, but this bill clarifies its availability under certain circumstances. A few Representatives I trust shared some constitutional concerns with me on the House floor. I erred on the side of caution. It passed 396-4.
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/187100591329355
just voted no on H R 347, which, among other things, makes it easier to criminally prosecute a person who enters an area occupied by certain government officials. This bill is so broad that if the Speaker of the House visits a McDonald's, and they shut down the place for him (or her) but forget to lock the door, and you enter, you can go to prison for up to 10 years. No intent to harm required. The bill passed 399-3.
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/187102134662534
just voted no on H R 368, which slightly broadens (clarifies) the circumstances under which a federal officer or agency may remove a case to federal court when sued. Current law already permits removal, but this bill clarifies its availability under certain circumstances. A few Representatives I trust shared some constitutional concerns with me on the House floor. I erred on the side of caution. It passed 396-4.