FakeJustinAmash

Hey @RepScholten @HillaryScholten , do the right thing. Make us proud of MI-3!

Is he...is he healing Epstein? 😬

@MikeRogersForMI Fuck off you genocidal prick. You're a coward and add literally zero value to society, all you do is extract. Go back to Florida and leave us alone.

Iranian leaders are FINALLY coming to the table to negotiate. This is a big step in the right direction. Peace through strength!

@jabeale Post the ENTIRE thing and see how YOU'RE now lying by omission. Bitch.

Iran Attack PSA: You're about to be bombarded with Democrat members of congress and the media calling the attack on Iran "illegal" and "unconstitutional," while claiming the president is required to obtain the approval of congress prior to launching military attacks on foreign targets. These people will be collectively engaging in a lie by omission, as they are all aware that the War Powers Resolution allows for presidents to authorize attacks without pre-approval or notification of congress, with a requirement to brief congress within 48 hours and obtain their official authorization to continue attacks beyond 60 days. They will all assume we are as ignorant of the truth as they are pretending to be. Feel free to copy this attachment and send it to anyone spouting the "illegal, unconstitutional" nonsense.

@VeritasLiberta8 @justinamash Reading comprehension is always tough, shame.

@justinamash Like and respect you Justin, but this just isn’t correct. Trump can take action and did.

The paid grifters, partisan hacks, and bots are out in force—misleading people about the Constitution and the law—to defend Trump’s unconstitutional war. Here’s an important Iran war PSA: Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1550), it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60–90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress’s approval) offensive military action. The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress’s express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress’s approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans. It’s for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there’s an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account. The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack. The fact that previous presidents have violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution does not—and cannot—change the law or make any present military action lawful.

Or like, just abolish it. Screw funding them for more training. I thought we were libertarians, man. 😉

@jeremykauffman @justinamash Reading comprehension is hard for you, eh?

@justinamash A Palestinian whose political priority is to let in infinite brown people how surprising

Psychologically and rhetorically, ICE has become the right’s Covid, causing otherwise rational people to lose all sense of proportion and reality.

@noOnesayinit @justinamash "We" needs to learn how to use the search function, or @grok, or a search engine. "We" clearly suffers from being a partisan hack. Sad.

@justinamash Would you repost your opposition to Barack's killing U.S. citizens abroad or Biden defying supreme court/Constitution on Covid mandates, landlords, student loans, etc..., we'd like to evaluate your opinion then honest friend.

Congress never authorized this military campaign, so it’s unconstitutional and unlawful no matter how great you might think it is or how righteous you might believe the cause. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

@RavensRealist @justinamash What bills have YOU written?

@justinamash What bills have you written?

“Thanks to President Trump for removing the tariffs President Trump placed on these agricultural products. This is what winning looks like.”

@ethan1saacson @justinamash

If these are justifiable strikes, then the Trump administration should have no trouble getting an authorization from Congress for this “war”—Hegseth’s own description—as the Constitution requires. Without it, these attacks amount at best to extrajudicial killings and war crimes.

@joeroganhq @justinamash Justin "Receipts" Amash

Name a politician you'd like to see on the Joe Rogan podcast?

All the more reason to support Ranked Choice Voting in Michigan! michiganadvance.com/2025/10/15/cou…

@justinamash Might?

MAGA, Inc., might be even worse than the neocons when it comes to frivolous self-defense “justifications” for military action without congressional authorization.

@cesarbaezc @justinamash But it is military intervention, correct? So why does the context matter if military intervention is being done illegally, inappropriately, etc. It's not how it is supposed to work regardless of the context.

@FakeJustinAmash @justinamash Because this is the perspective most people hold if they're not familiar with the current situation in Venezuela and its effects on the US, relevant context is necessary. This is neither an act of war nor a typical antinarcotics operation. x.com/justinamash/st…

With all due respect, this reply perfectly encapsulates my recent point that many self-described liberals do not consistently apply their beliefs about a rules-based order. The constitutional standard for engaging in military hostilities does not change simply because Venezuela’s government is illegitimate or the country is overrun by terrorists or the need for intervention is great or even that U.S. citizens may benefit. Maybe he’s right that military action should be taken. We have a process for that in the United States—and it does not include unilateral strikes by the president except to repel a sudden attack on the United States.

@cesarbaezc @justinamash How does it matter here?

I take your point about constitutional limits. My argument isn’t that Congress can be bypassed—it’s that this shouldn’t be framed as ‘hostilities against Venezuela.’ The country itself is hijacked. Targeting a cartel’s drug boat is not an act of war against Venezuelans. That distinction matters.

@WeWillBeFree24 What's wrong monarchist? You stopped playing. Don't wanna keep taking L's? Your profile picture is as blurry as your understanding of the constitution.

@WeWillBeFree24 Imagine calling yourself "The Constitutionalist" and 1. Not reading or understanding the constitution 2. Not reading or understanding the War Powers Resolution 3. Not understanding the supremacy clause

Imagine glossing yourself "The Constitutionalist" and then justify ignoring the constitution with the argument of "nobody else follows it". #griftalert

@WeWillBeFree24 Imagine glossing yourself "The Constitutionalist" and acting like ignoring the restraints the constitution is intended to put on the president don't matter because "he's the president". You should regloss yourself "The Monarchist" #Redcoat #Grifter

@FakeJustinAmash Imagine pretending like the President isn't the Commander-in-Chief and ignoring his executive authority.

@justinamash @billybinion Why was it important to make this distinction here?

@billybinion Attending a great school is not proof of intelligence. I know plenty of idiots who went to great schools. It’s also true there are plenty of smart persons who pretend to be idiots as part of a grift. It may well be that he’s in the latter grouping, but we don’t know for sure.

I was today years old when I learned this guy went to a Top 3 law school. Wild how many “fake news” crusaders amass huge followings by lying about basic things like the Constitution. It’s craven. Selling your soul for clout isn’t worth it.