Justin Amash on Why the President Isn't Above the Law
Plus: A listener asks the editors to guess if the real reason Donald Trump is so passionate about tariffs is because he sees them as a deal-making tool rather than a purely economic instrument.
In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie welcome special guest Justin Amash to weigh in on President Donald Trump vs. the rule of law, Congress' inability to budget, and Vice President J.D. Vance's big trip to Europe.
04:04 - Trump quotes Napoleon
19:36 - DOGE wants to cut, Congress still wants to spend big
29:05 - Defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
38:37 - Weekly listener question
47:21 - Vance goes to Europe
56:58 - This week's cultural recommendations
Mentioned in this podcast:
"Justin Amash: 'I'd Impeach Every President,'" by Nick Gillespie
"The Problem With Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order," by Justin Amash
"The War on Bureaucracy," by Liz Wolfe
"DOGE Needs Data To Survive. These Lawsuits Are Trying To Starve It of Information," by Christian Britschgi
"Elon Musk's 'Proof' of Government Waste Is in the Pudding," by Robby Soave
"Kerry Howley: A Journey Through the Deep State," by Nick Gillespie
"Trump's 'Reciprocal' Tariffs Could Be Largest Tax Increase Since World War II," by Eric Boehm
"The Republicans' Underwhelming Budget," by Jessica Riedl
"Douglas Irwin: Why Trump's Tariff Plans Are Dangerous," by Nick Gillespie
"Trump Tariffs: Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War," by Erica York
"DOGE Begins Publishing Data After Transparency Complaints," by C.J. Ciaramella
"The Disappointing Results of Trump's 'Deferred Resignation' Plan Are Part of a Pattern," by Jacob Sullum
"The 5 Worst Things About the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," by Veronique de Rugy
"Elizabeth Warren's Hubris Allowed Trump To Defund the CFPB," by Eric Boehm
"The Media Love Negative Trends, but America Keeps Moving in the Right Direction," by Eric Boehm
"J.D. Vance Brings the Culture War to Europe: 'There Is a New Sheriff in Town,'" by Matthew Petti
"U.S. Tells Europe To Handle Its Own Defense," by J.D. Tuccille
"CBS Is Wrong About Free Speech in Germany and the Rise of Nazism," by Robby Soave
"The New Captain America Film Has Important Lessons for Trump and Biden Stans," by Matthew Rozsa
Reason Speakeasy: Brian Doherty, February 27, 2025
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today's sponsor:
- Are you a student looking for a transformative opportunity that supports the foundations of a free society? Reliance College invites students aged 16 to 24 to the 2025 Great Connections Seminar in Chicago, from July 26 to August 2. This year's theme, "Reason and Free Will," dives into timeless ideas from writers such as Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and Aristotle. Students sharpen critical thinking in small, dynamic groups, developing the intellectual tools needed to thrive in a free society. Outside the classroom, they'll explore Chicago's vibrant culture—touring museums, trying improv comedy, and building lifelong connections. Parents, this program equips students to think, reason, and act independently. Go to reliancecollege.org/reason to learn more and apply. Early registration is just $400 before March 1, including room and board, with scholarships available. Don't miss out! Visit www.reliancecollege.org/reason to learn more and apply.
Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve
- Video Editor: Ian Keyser
- Producer: Hunt Beaty
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This goober again?
Amash being the goober?
While Trump is busy doing something about cutting the size and scope of government, Amash is actually talking about it.
He is so brave.
But is he gay? That’s how you know a person is morally superior.
That's the only reason he isn't president.
Amash/Buttigieg '28!
Saying Trump is not above the law is supporting lawfare.
Do you believe the constitution is below the law buddy? What law, that is constitutional, is he breaking?
This is extra retarded on a day notorious d.c. judge Chutkan even ruled in his favor.
Like most subjects your understanding seems to be what you heard on MSNBC and ignorance.
And you accuse me of drunk posting.
Damn you’re funny. You drunk asshole.
Wut?
Are you drunk posting now?
You're an admitted alcoholic lol.
Is this all you do now? Project with such obvious accusations?
What law are you inferring he is above retard? Why are you incapable of constructing even the weakest defense of your stance? You just blindly repeat dem/reddit narratives lol.
Democrats did it first!
Sarc doesn’t come here anymore.
Who's Sarc? Never heard of him.
His liver seceded from him. Very sad.
Sarc's liver could stop a killer asteroid its that tough.
Sarcs liver is what Captain America’s shield is made from.
So could your mom.
You’re such a dumb crybaby asshole. Lol
I don't know how you do it, but you become less funny the drunker you get. And didn't think you could get less funny.
"UR MOM!!!1!"
Genius retort, touché.
Your mother’s an astronaut!
IDEAS!
He has a dream that one day he won't be judged based on the contents of his bottle but on the idiocy of his words instead. - mlk
Saying Trump is not above the law implies he did something criminal and that there's credence to the ridiculous lawfare they waged against him.
It's basically a smear that gives its purveyors a cheap out when challenged. "What, I didn't say he did anything. I just said presidents aren't above the law".
The "very principled" people here like to use it.
Not criminal. Exceeding limits on powers is not criminal. Failure to respect separation of powers is not criminal. Doing whatever you want because you know it will take years for the courts to sort it out is not criminal.
But it is all in defiance of the law and the Constitution. And no it’s not ok because Democrats did it first.
I want Congress involved. Repeal the laws that granted the authority to create the agencies Trump is dismantling. Or they will come back like cancer.
Stop being so shortsighted and focused on “winning” while ignoring the long term effectiveness. Or lack thereof.
Sure it feels good to stick it to these government employees. But has no effect in the long run without changing the law.
What is he violating? Instead if bluster, be specific. He has added legal defenses for every action. Where is he exceeding his article 2 powers? Literally 3 judge shopped judges including Chutkan have disagreed with your infantile analysis in the last 48 hours.
It is younwho have confusion thinking Congress can modify article 2 powers.
Your ignorance is your justification as you've presented no statutory or constitutional argument except for a bare assertion.
You're an idiot sarc.
Imagine, if you will, an entrenched bureaucracy so corrupt that it convinces idiots that accountability is illegal.
You have entered “The Donkey Zone”.
"But it is all in defiance of the law and the Constitution"
How so. CNN and MSDNC and all the other USAID funded propaganda ops have been screaming that, but they never say exactly what laws or parts of the constitution are being "defied".
Perhaps you can clarify where.
FDR, arguably the worst president, got his way by getting Congress to pass laws, and intimidating the Supremes into not objecting.
This executive order shit is just pissing on a crowd.
If anything he is doing is to matter, it has to be with Congress.
You're simply arguing congressional superiority instead of coequal branches lol. The same argument the democrats are making.
It is especially strange after you spent a year declaring support for illegals to ignore immoral laws lol.
Legislature legislates, duh.
Did you think you said something intelligent here?
The executive executes legislation. What is being done is an audit of that execution. The people being let go are working in the executive branch.
Congress can not modify article 2 powers.
Congress can not pass unconstitutional laws or assume more power for themselves.
Now try again dumdum.
congressional superiority
Technically, Congress does always have the last word, though they are slow to assert that power. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, they can change the law to address the objection, or initiate changing the Constitution to allow it. If the President is doing things they don't like, they can cut off the money for them. As long as they are willing to exercise their full power, they always get the final say.
"...It's basically a smear that gives its purveyors a cheap out when challenged. "What, I didn't say he did anything. I just said presidents aren't above the law"..."
It's a lie perpetrated by TDS-addled slimy piles of shit.
"...Saying Trump is not above the law implies he did something criminal and that there's credence to the ridiculous lawfare they waged against him..."
Amash is a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit and has nothing other than a smear to use.
Ooops.
JA;DL
JA;JA
Who gives a shit what this retard thinks. According to him conducting foreign policy is a crime if it does 't align with the deep state but lawfare against your political opponent is just fine. GFY Justin.
Who claimed that " conducting foreign policy is a crime if it does 't align with the deep state "?
Some Trumpista somewhere, or some Kamalite somewhere; statists get their marching orders and start making up quotes.
I see the disingenuous use of quotes. Social justice didn't use quotes, but your plan is to make him defend that someone did say the exact words you quoted.
Alexander Vindman is the answer to an honest question responding to his post.
https://www.instagram.com/MEjercit/
This asshole is trying to draw traffic to his instragram.
Didn't listen. Did they ask him if members of the IC are above the law?
Did they ask how many funbucks he got from USAID?
Government kickbacks are the very soul of libertarianism.
Seems like just 5 years ago Amash said it was principled to impeachment Trump for even daring to ask to investigate USAID funded Burisma.
We all know the VP is above the law and that sacred principle is all that was (D)ifferent.
What makes Amash look extra awful about all that is not only was Trump's accusation correct, and not only was the situation far worse than that, but that the impeachment was arranged to hide a whole other level of grift.
Nobartium's question was legitimate. Can Doge cross-reference cocktail parties attended by Amash and Sullum?
Justin Amash on Why the President Isn't Above the Law
What about congressmen who deliberately misrepresented the Mueller Report to smear their party's leader, all as a setup for a failed presidential run—because they're "principled" that way?
Justin Amash is one of those rare grifters who preys on libertarians rather than the usual left/right divide.
"Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIA—the most evil agency in U.S. history," Hornberger charged in his opening statement, reiterating his critique of a student resource page at amash.house.gov. "Conservatives love free enterprise, but have long supported the evil, immoral, socialist, central-planning, Republican/Democratic system of immigration controls, which has brought death and suffering to countless people, as well as a brutal police state consisting of highway checkpoints and other initiations of force against innocent people."
Running as he is a "campaign of principle for the party of principle," in a cycle where many Libertarians seem particularly eager to shed their image as a refuge for ideologically alienated and/or politically opportunistic ex-Republicans, Hornberger portrayed Amash as someone merely tinkering around the edges of the welfare/warfare state.
https://reason.com/2020/05/12/the-libertarian-party-critique-of-justin-amash/
Hornberger said it well. Except for the immigration blind spot.
But Amash got the Rolling Stone endorsement.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/justin-amash-trump-impeachment-independent-republican-910739/
"Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIA..."
Do Massie or Paul have this? I guess Amash "leans" libertarian if supporting a attempted coup started by partisan police is like "leaning" vegetarian if you eat steak and eggs everyday for breakfast. I'd be curious who else is on this "leaning" list.
USAID funded Trump impeachment
Found that earlier today, was gonna save it for Roundup tomorrow. It's not legally "treason"; that requires collaboration with an enemy of the US. But it is damn sure illegal to use taxpayer money to attempt a partisan effort to impeach a sitting POTUS.
Oh, and Shellenberger has done a wonderful job on exposing the 'Climate Change' bullshit: "Apocalypse Never"; get it and Epstein's "Fossil Future" may well be a better place to start.
I'm sure he gets plenty of money from the left.
I don't think it is possible for people to:
a)advocate/believe in 'rule of law' while
b)being a cynic about government and a nihilist about everyone in society who disagrees.
IMO - many libertarians seem to be fully b.
"a nihilist about everyone in society who disagrees."
Leftists always project.
Got news for ya, buddy: rule of law is a figment of lawyers' imagination to justify split appeals court rulings as interpreted by men. If you believe written laws are actually clear enough and objective enough that anyone can understand them, you haven't been keeping track of how judicial systems work.
RoboCop doesn't exist, and if it did, it would be wrong half the time, just as lawyers are.
Feudal system with different costumes and better toys. Human nature, and government, hasn’t changed.
How drunk are you?
10 pm on a Tuesday. I'm guessing pretty fucking loaded.
TDS-addled shit Stupid Government Tricks tries to claim 'both sides'. Fuck off and die, asshole.
JFucked invents a new false dichotomy, but he is a lying pile of TDS-addled shit, ain't he?
Just remember, Sevo, you can't use logic or reason with the people who don't know the difference between a boy and a girl.
IN law school they warn you about this kind of misguided argument.
The question of the law is NOT separate from the President, something there that he follows or ignores. He takes the oath to defend the Constititution and it doesn't say "using Justin's view on what the Constitution says" -- a puerile error.
I think one childish and nasty habit underlies Amish's view of the world: If you are wrong I MUST BE RIGHT
Sooo Dreamy!
Stop it, reason.
You are never going to make Amash happen.
Most libertarians just can’t take the W. When things finally start to go our way, we look for something, anything, that must be wrong about it. Can we just celebrate a tentative win? That after decades of complaining about federal corruption and waste, we finally have an Administration trying to do something. Could they be approaching it differently? Of course. But at least they’re focused on the issue and taking steps to make it better. This is considerably better than anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime!
I was just reading this morning about Spicer v Biden. Not a word that I recall on this from Justin. Somebody like Justin (namely Biden) got trivial and vindictive and fired Sean Spicer. A friend said let's take it to the courts, it will fail, but to Biden's utter disgrace it will establish the right to fire government employees for Pres Trump. AND IT DID.
Justin cannot see that his 'nobody above the law" actually strengthens what he hates!. Because it forces the conclusion that what Justin calls above the law is actrually firmly a right within the law. Anyway, my highschool composition teacher would deplore that as doing 3 bad things
1) Showing that this is about Trump and not about the law because ;you were so silent about truly above the law moves by Biden.
2) It invites the scorn of every non-lawyer reading it. Black and white. Easy to see , this is acting above the law--- yet if it were so there would be no need to tell people the obvious "Hey, did you know your assss is on fire?"
3) After a handful of moves by Biden to act against all levels of courts with tuition forgiveness, the real questinn, the concenring question is 'What about folks like Biden who don't care if it's against the law?" Pelosi said he couldn't do it, several court decisions said he couldn't. He mocked the law and the judges but where was Justin?
Read this and see what Justin is missing......
====>
Circuit court judge axes Biden plan to end $475 billion in student loans
"A Department of Education official said that ‘the Biden administration misled students into believing their debt would simply disappear, despite the law being clear that a taxpayer-funded bailout is blatant executive overreach.’"
HE would flunk my college class because of that silly rhetorical device: Everybody who disagrees with me must be saying that Trump is above the law. Not true at all.
Why not complain that under the guise of not taking this case to the Supreme Court Roberts gave his opinion as THE OPINION We now know Boasberg had a world-class conflict of interest (it was acutally known within 12 hours of the decision !!) and now Roberts is juggling Presidential Immunity, conflict of interest, and his insane informal 'court decision' that Trump is wrong.
I always knew he would fall off the cliff.
To a normal person this is just mis-stated. The President has to make decisions, timely decisions, and if the lowest courts can say 'wait!! Have to stop you until this is investigated" --when no one can say "we have to stop YOU , JUDGE, while you are investigated"
You can't give Tren de Aragua an official notice to go hide while sluggish courts decide whether it would have been legal to ship your murderous raping asss out of the country
The PResident is not above the law but he acts and then is appraised.