By Justin Amash, Ken Buck, Jared Golden, Scott Perry, Dean Phillips, Chip Roy and Abigail Spanberger We are members of Congress whose political ideologies and priorities run the gamut, but we are united in our determination to safeguard the constitutional duty of Congress to declare war and to ensure that the American people have their voices heard. This duty is essential to providing the men and women of our armed forces the support and clarity of mission they deserve. Leaders from across the political spectrum have too often avoided that responsibility -- and the full debate and engagement it brings. Congress must act now, before our inaction irrevocably undermines our constitutional separation of powers and endangers lives. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power to declare war in Congress. As representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to engage with them on the purposes, goals and risks of war. The Founders rested this authority with Congress to guarantee that the decision to send Americans into harm's way would be made by the individuals most accountable to the people. Today, less than half of 1 percent of Americans serve in the armed forces. Too often, military families experience multiple deployments while the rest of us, including members of Congress, go about our lives disconnected from their sacrifice. Our broken system is failing them. We have been at war in the Middle East for nearly two decades, under authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) that our predecessors in Congress passed almost a generation ago. Men and women of our armed forces continue to risk their lives as presidents of both parties stretch these authorizations to justify often tenuously related military engagements. Rather than debating and voting on present conflicts, Congress habitually acquiesces to the executive branch's actions. This must change; the Constitution demands it, and the people we represent deserve it. Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a concurrent resolution regarding the use of force against Iran or its agents. For some of us, this vote was a positive step toward reasserting Congress's constitutional responsibilities. For others, it was an inadequate and inapt substitute for real action. Regardless of our respective positions on that vote, we firmly agree that Congress must reclaim its Article I responsibility regarding the use of force. To start, it is time to have a serious debate and vote on repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. This authorization has fully outlived its purpose, given the death of Hussein, regime change and the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, regardless of how one views the merits of that withdrawal. Just last year, the full House supported, on a nonpartisan basis, repeal of the 2002 AUMF as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, but this provision was later stripped from the final text as the House and Senate conferred. The 2002 authorization -- as well as a lingering 1991 authorization -- should be removed from the books, lest either be used to justify further military engagement beyond what Congress intended. We also must foster an informed debate on a strategic alternative to the 2001 authorization. It granted the president authority to use force against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, or those who harbored such organizations or people, yet it has been used to justify an array of military engagements against targets that, although perhaps worthy, were in some cases nonexistent or unimagined 19 years ago. We are committed to developing and debating a new approach that provides the executive branch with the latitude necessary to fight the ongoing transnational terrorist threat, while also ensuring that Congress takes responsibility, as the Constitution requires, for the decision to send men and women off to war. Our debates and votes must affirm that the decision to proceed with war-making resides in Congress. The declarations or authorizations we pass must have a clear scope and requirement of periodic congressional reconsideration to ensure the proper defense of our nation and prevent ill-defined forever wars. We expect that any effort to reconsider the 2001 authorization will be difficult, contentious and emotional, but it must not be partisan. In the face of geopolitical challenges and transnational threats, it is more important than ever that Congress affirm its willingness to do its job, debate the hardest of topics and vote -- expressing the will of the people -- on the wars that may take the lives of those we represent. At a time of divisive, angry partisanship, the call to do right by our service members, their families and the Constitution is one that can and should unite us. We are a group of representatives who, despite our disagreements, stand together to affirm the role and duty of Congress. In the halls of Congress and at gatherings around the country, let us lay down our partisan swords and commit to do better by the men and women in uniform who take up arms on behalf of our nation and the Constitution we swore to support and defend.

By Justin Amash When my dad was 16, America welcomed him as a Palestinian refugee. It wasn't easy moving to a new country, but it was the greatest blessing of his life. Throughout my childhood, my dad would remind my brothers and me of the challenges he faced before coming here and how fortunate we were to be Americans. In this country, he told us, everyone has an opportunity to succeed regardless of background. Growing up, I thought a lot about the brilliance of America. Our country's founders established a constitutional republic uniquely dedicated to securing the rights of the people. In fact, they designed a political system so ordered around liberty that, in succeeding generations, the Constitution itself would strike back against the biases and blind spots of its authors. My parents, both immigrants, were Republicans. I supported Republican candidates throughout my early adult life and then successfully ran for office as a Republican. The Republican Party, I believed, stood for limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty -- principles that had made the American Dream possible for my family. In recent years, though, I've become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions. George Washington was so concerned as he watched political parties take shape in America that he dedicated much of his farewell address to warning that partisanship, although "inseparable from our nature," was the people's "worst enemy." He observed that it was "the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Washington said of partisanship, in one of America's most prescient addresses: "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. … "It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." True to Washington's fears, Americans have allowed government officials, under assertions of expediency and party unity, to ignore the most basic tenets of our constitutional order: separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. The result has been the consolidation of political power and the near disintegration of representative democracy. These are consequences of a mind-set among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. Instead of acting as an independent branch of government and serving as a check on the executive branch, congressional leaders of both parties expect the House and Senate to act in obedience or opposition to the president and their colleagues on a partisan basis. In this hyperpartisan environment, congressional leaders use every tool to compel party members to stick with the team, dangling chairmanships, committee assignments, bill sponsorships, endorsements and campaign resources. As donors recognize the growing power of party leaders, they supply these officials with ever-increasing funds, which, in turn, further tightens their grip on power. The founders envisioned Congress as a deliberative body in which outcomes are discovered. We are fast approaching the point, however, where Congress exists as little more than a formality to legitimize outcomes dictated by the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. With little genuine debate on policy happening in Congress, party leaders distract and divide the public by exploiting wedge issues and waging pointless messaging wars. These strategies fuel mistrust and anger, leading millions of people to take to social media to express contempt for their political opponents, with the media magnifying the most extreme voices. This all combines to reinforce the us-vs.-them, party-first mind-set of government officials. Modern politics is trapped in a partisan death spiral, but there is an escape. Most Americans are not rigidly partisan and do not feel well represented by either of the two major parties. In fact, the parties have become more partisan in part because they are catering to fewer people, as Americans are rejecting party affiliation in record numbers. These same independent-minded Americans, however, tend to be less politically engaged than Red Team and Blue Team activists. Many avoid politics to focus on their own lives, while others don't want to get into the muck with the radical partisans. But we owe it to future generations to stand up for our constitutional republic so that Americans may continue to live free for centuries to come. Preserving liberty means telling the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that we'll no longer let them play their partisan game at our expense. Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party. No matter your circumstance, I'm asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I'm asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system -- and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it.

By Pablo Mena | UPolitics Rep. Justin Amash Date 12 July 2015 | Author: public domain (Wikipedia) Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan), the only Republican lawmaker thus far to support impeaching President Donald Trump, has been rumored to mount a third-party campaign against Trump in 2020, but Amash stoked that speculation on Wednesday. “I have no interest in playing spoiler. When I run for something, I run to win,” the 39-year-old Libertarian-leaning congressman told The Hill. “I haven’t ruled anything out.” Some GOP lawmaker have reportedly voiced concern that should Amash run as a third-party candidate in 2020, he could help Trump win re-election or even boost Democrats’ hopes in Rust Belt states like Michigan and Wisconsin. Earlier this year, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz drew severe criticism from liberals after saying he was mulling an Independent presidential campaign in 2020. “I respect Libertarians, I like them a lot. But it doesn’t take away from the Democrats. It will take away from the conservative viewpoint and that hurts our side,” said Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-California). “You guys want to elect Biden or Crazy Bernie, then that’s the way to do it.” “I don’t have anything against him, but when people do this stuff, all it does is tear down the ability of Republicans to unite,” he added. Amash has not backed down in his calls for Trump’s impeachment, a position he took after citing the revelations from former special counsel Robert Mueller‘s full report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Amash also recently resigned from the House Freedom Caucus, which he helped form in 2015 with several other GOP lawmakers. The caucus pushed for cutting federal spending and reducing government interference.