Here's your rifle Mr. President
By - kingsfockets
Actually it wasn’t considered formally until 1935, it didn’t propose conscripting those who voted yes, and wouldn’t apply if we were attacked first. It was called the Ludlow Amendment.
I would be happy if the President went to Congress and declared war before sending troops somewhere, as the Constitution already stipulates, something that has been neglected for over 50 years.
Something that has been ignored basically from the beginning - the Barbary Wars were never declared and that was in 1800.
Yes, the first time it was used was War of 1812 and the last time WWII. We should enforce a provision we already have regarding declarations of war before we add more.
Pretty sure they would just sink our ships somewhere in the ocean and claim we were attacked first, as we've done in the past.
Of course at this time, one could also go to prison for speaking out against the war.
[Eugene V. Debs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs)
That was probably the reason it was never enacted. Imagine half the country's adult population serving and the other half in jail, not a good look for the so-called leader of the free world
It's a fan theory on why you rarely see adult, middle aged, men.
Gentlemen you had my curiosity... but now you have my attention.
Intriguing. How deep does Pokemon lore go?
Maybe the war is against the adult Pokemon and the children battling with their immature pokemonsters are left to their own devices in a semi-anarchic society
Please share more.
The US was in no means the "leader of the free world" in 1916, the world wasn't especially free or as united as it is now, and the US wouldn't have been the leader anyway, while definitely a growing titan, the top dog was definitely still Britain.
That said, there's no way you could support an army of that size even with no people in jail, an army needs a massive amount of people working to support it from home. Weapons, food, transportation etc. Pulling this number straight out of my ass but even at that time I'd assume you'd require at least 80k civilians directly working to support an army of 100k.
Being registered as a volunteer does not mean one will actively serve in the armed forces. It would merely be a pool of potential recruits that the military could draw from without technically resorting to mandatory conscription. Even then, most "volunteers" would likely be deemed unfit for one reason or another. Really, their operating procedure would be no different than with a conscription system where, in a way, everyone is automatically treated as a volunteer.
Volunteering for service doesn’t necessarily mean volunteering to be a rifleman. Uniforms, bullets, and tanks still need to get manufactured, transported, and stored. tons of logistics and infrastructure needed to support an army.
Sorry if i word this rudely, im just curious.
Is software dev actually a military role? Like you have a rank and everything or is it just like any other dev job except you work for the airforce?
Yessir, ASFC 3D0X4 is the rate for Computer Systems Programming. I’m going to boot camp and everything, and as with every other job in the military, I will be on the same pay scale and all.
Could you explain that abbreviation you just used?
[it’s a job code essentially. ](https://www.foreverwingman.com/career_fields/3d0x4-computer-systems-programming/)
Air Force Specialty Code
A good friend of mine went on to be a firefighter for the navy. It's a big job but its one a lot of people, including myself before then, don't realize exists. There really are so. many. jobs.
also pulling the number out of my ass, but i'd say you need _at least_ one person at home for each soldier. if you're fighting a continuous war you need even more, just to keep the economy from crashing.
somebody with ass-less facts here to clear up our ass-hattery?
America has been operating at 300:1 for a long time. WW1 and WW2 wars were... built different. They were industrial total wars. The numbers were more like 10:1, maybe as low as 30:1. The bigger number is civilians.
holy shit. that is mindblowing. can you imagine 10:1 today? it wouldn't be the free world anymore.
We'd be fielding an army of 30 million people. Damn
It depends on the war. WW2, maybe 20k-30k to cover 100k
WW1, probably close to 10k-20k
Modern warfare, more like 150k-200k
It goes up as technology improves is I guess what I'm saying.
Imagine going to war with your grandparents
It happens, I’ve seen it in the guard. In some locations the militia is essentially a pass-time for certain families.
Was anyone ever prosecuted for merely speaking out against the war?
Debs went a step further, urging unlawful action (in resisting the draft).
_Abrams v US_
Probably one of the most infamous Supreme Court decisions where the dissent is recognized as 100% correct, and the majority 100% wrong.
This is a very good example of the SCOTUS not following precedent and instead going along with the “norms of the time” or “public opinion.”
Never a good idea.
Not charged for merely speaking out against the war, but for impeding the war effort.
Now we can agree with the dissent that the words didn't pose a clear and present danger, but what they were prosecuted for doing was more than mere criticism.
Yeah but today he today would likely be acquitted as Brandenburg v. Ohio has happened which is a good thing imo
And we've got an incredibly pro-speech SCOTUS.
Debs also ran for president from jail and received just short of a million votes in 1920. Emma Goldman also help found the no conscription league and got her deported under the anarchist exclusion act too
*Nervously looks at Mar a Lago*
...being in jail didn’t stop him from running for president?
I am down. Lets do this. Will Congress also put their salary on hold during government shutdowns or when the budget is not balanced?
They wont even make healthcare laws that they have to abide. Good luck with that.
Actually congress will grant themselves better healthcare benefits, workplace conditions, and benefits THEN vote against legislation granting their constituents same benefits.
It's actually super weird that America even allows this. In European countries the politicians use the same healthcare system & services as their constituents.
The children of parliament members also go to public kindergarten, public schools (state schools in the UK), etc.
_edit: fixed spelling_
At this point, it's not that we allow it to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it... The way our system is rigged, politicians get in, and they never have to leave
We absolutely do allow it. We vote for our congress. Just because there are no term limits does not mean they cannot be voted out.
You can certainly vote them out, and replace them with someone else who will play the same game.
By the time someone is running for Congress, they're too entrenched to be any use. You cannot be a viable politician without falling in line.
> The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
\- Douglas Adams
Love this. Also reminds me of
“If you want to be a cop, you shouldn’t be a cop” - Abraham Lincoln 2077
I really like the idea that every 4 or so Presidents everyone's SSN goes into a pot and they pull out a random name and that person is president assuming they meet the age requirements.
["The system very, very rarely makes the mistake of letting someone like me in." – Bernie Sanders , 1982](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/dfg6uo/the_system_very_very_rarely_makes_the_mistake_of/)
That is simply not true. Not all European countries are the same.
It’s actually not legal if I remember correctly. I believe there is a law stating that they can’t write a law that exempts them from the actual law. Prob is, no one looks at that because if you didn’t like the law then you were seen as someone who just wanted to hurt this “great healthcare plan”.
For the record I was never a fan of ACA, not because of what it was trying to do but because, as someone who works in insurance, I could see it wouldn’t hold water in the long run.
Hey don’t waste that ketchup! [There’s a shortage!](https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/business/ketchup-shortage-heinz/index.html)
No this is Patrick!
same vibes as [Cartman](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2yk2GPLL5z4)
Try to ask for the same healthcare plan that they have. See what happens.
It wouldn’t do anything because “Acts of War” are never signed away these days.
White I agree with your sentiment, threatening congresses salaries just ensures only independently wealthy people can be in the senate. Granted, it seems to be that way anyway. Perhaps just a ‘livable wage’, whatever gets you a one-bedroom apartment in the DC metro area.
That's actually how local politics work. If you're on the city council the pay isn't enough alone to make ends meet and the hours aren't flexible enough for a minimum wage job. Poor people do not enter government unless they can manage to run and win a major race.
Most state’s legislators don’t make enough to do that full time either.
That and the corruption. Even when anti-corruption laws are stronger thdres a huge amount of alternative legal ways to bribe local politicians.
And ban serving politicians from outside income.
I don’t mind book deals, but outside of that:
* congress should not be able to buy individual stocks, or options
* if elected their with significant holdings financials should enter a blind trust
* should not receive consulting or speaking fees, if there must be a financial relationship 100% of wages collected should be returned to the US federal government and the congressional internal budget
I’m sure we could hash this out further into real policy. Saying Congress shouldn’t enrich themselves is easily targeted by mealy mouthed distractors who don’t actually want to do anything but protect the current corruption.
Clean legislation that allows Congress to become valuable icons in touch with industry leaders like Apple or Chase but not be so easily swayed, and to even profit once they leave office. But not be such blatant corporate whores.
I mean it’s just gross at this point.
"Did the check to my brother-in-law clear? How about the ones to my kids?"
Fancy private school admissions for their kids type stuff too.
This guy knows what lobbyist are!
Pay Congress the median wage in their state or district. Watch how quickly they get to work on improving the economy.
A lot of their money comes from already being rich, supporters donations, and knowing/having people that know how to make them pay as little as possible out of their own pocket.
Lowering the wage probably wouldn’t actually change all that much, because it’s a power-hungry-rich-person game to begin with.
Members of congress have a call center they use for fundraising. It smells, if I remember the description right, like a mix of a locker room and a burger king. They're expected to fundraise via phone calls. That's what makes large donors so appealing, so they can raise the money they're expected by their party for themselves and other candidates, as fast as possible. I think it was Katy Porter who said she was pulled out of a legislative session when she was brand new to do this, and it blew her mind.
Many in congress are wealthy when they get in, most all are rich when the leave. Part of that is that there's a shitload of lawyers and business people who win elections. Lowering the wage wouldn't improve it, it'd make it worse.
If you want to improve it, get money out of politics via public funding mechanisms and the like,....ironically there is a bill for that..but the filibuster as it is now prevents it.
Also, if you feel the people in charge aren't representative of you...you could run. Granted you'll have to start small, within your city administration and the like, but there are resources and groups pushing to get people into politics so all walks of life are represented.
>...ironically there is a bill for that.
Could you please elaborate?
HR1 - For the People Act
>The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio. The money would come from a new "Freedom From Influence Fund" under the U.S. Treasury, which would collect funds by charging a small fee assessed on criminal and civil fines and penalties or settlements with banks and corporations that commit corporate malfeasance. It also incorporates campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court held that limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations are unconstitutional.
Or you do it like English city councils....only reasonable expenses for running their constituency offices allowed
Low salaries also make them even more susceptible to bribes and lobbyism, but at this point I wonder if it would make that much of a difference...
I honestly don't think it will go down that way, those cheap bastards won't work a second for free.
Doesnt matter now. We don’t do wars, we just do “conflicts”. /s
So, bye-bye voter anonymity?
This would require everyone’e vote being public, which is not a good idea.
That's a democratic nightmare. If an elected official's pay is held up by instability in the organization then independently wealthy officials can hold others hostage by not voting.
Balanced budget is a myth under a country with a sovereign fiat currency.
Messing with Congressional pay is a terrible idea. It reinforces politics as a rich man's game and encourages corruption. Go the other way.
Give Congress lifetime salaries tied to terms of service, but forbid them from receiving any other form of compensation.
If I served in Congress a decade ago why should I be barred from having a car repair shop?
Would've turned out great in WW2 when most people vote no to avoid dying overseas and then the Nazi's ravage Europe
Balancing a budget as a requirement is a terrible idea for a national government. Loaning money/creating money is a powerful way to invest in the future.
Unfortunately it violates your right to an anonymous vote.
trying to keep the us out of WW1
Can’t believe that so many people, like every other commenter on this post, seem to have completely missed this. They don’t teach early 1900’s history in schools anymore?
Did y’all not have a world history class? I remember talking about WWI and WWII at least three semesters in high school. In American History, World History, and in Western Civ.
Oh did you go to a real school where they didn't spend a year of your education focusing on Texas History? Man, I bet they didn't even teach y'all about the Bible in English class.
Lol arguably I went somewhere worse 😂. I went to school in Mississippi, and yes we had a semester of Mississippi history. We also had that one teacher who tried to say the Bible was a literary work so that gave her grounds to talk about it in a public school. She was fired a few years later.
It wasn't till I discovered Dan Carlins Hardcore History podcast that I gained a grasp of WW1. He does a 6 part series on it that totals around 24 hours. Which in turn helped me understand WW2 even more.
Being a history major and someone who loves history, I’ve also witnessed how poorly history is absorbed across most of the populace across most countries, particularly the United States. Most people memorize the facts for the test, take said test, then eject it from their brains pretty quickly. It’s sad, really.
Tbh no. At least from my and people I talked to perspectives, US history always starts at Columbus, and then spends all year reaching 1899, and then rest is literally about one or two weeks of "current" history. I absolutely hated that.
This might have prevented us from interceding in WW2 also. A just war if ever there was one, in most ways.
Also, this ignores the fact that WAY under half the US population is even capable of being in the military. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are all extremely trained for specialized roles, and much more physically fit than the general population, and that’s for a reason. You just send your average 57 year old office worker or truck driver to the front lines with a rifle? Or expect them to perform a technical support role? You’re going to lose badly, and overwhelm the military logistics with supporting incompetent personnel. And you can’t just give exemptions to certain ages or such because the law loses any point. If everyone who’s not fit enough for service (ie the majority of voters) can vote for war without consequences, there’s not much point, and it’s unfair to those who DO suffer conscription.
We have a professional military for a reason. Conscripts simply don’t work in the modern battlefield where drone pilots and mechanized infantry are the order of the day.
This is a very well intentioned but very flawed approach. A better one might be that voting for war requires anyone who voted “yes” to work in community service or war goods production for a month or so.
It would remove some of the voting rights of young men, in short.
«would have to volunteer»
In true military fashion
The act of voting yes would be the act of volunteering. You wouldn't be required to vote yes
nah no worries, they'll just change the definition of what "war" means. no involuntary volunteers needed when you're not at war but just "doing peacekeeping missions". oh wait we already did that didn't we?
A) You would loose any voter confidentiality as you could tell how somebody voted afterwards and
B) In some cases there wouldn’t be enough time for a national vote.
B case is already covered in the law. You can defend and even strike preemptively without a formal declaration of war. This proposed law is for formal declaration of war.
A) with the current technology we can set up a system that would select people for draft without disclosing who voted for what until they get selected.
Your point on the A case is the same as the comment you replied to. By selecting those who voted for war for draft first you have eliminated the confidentiality of someone's vote which is a key principle in democracy. For that to be the way it's done all matters would have to use the same standard. If you voted for something like free college education then your taxes would have to increase before those who voted against.
Immediately after after 9/11 most people supported going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but didn't support the Iraq war by the time it happened. Would it be fair to send people who were driven by emotion and sense of revenge, who again was a large portion of the country, to a actually unrelated war in Iraq?
And that's how you end wars almost overnight.
Knowing us, we'd just change what constitutes an "act of war".
We don't even really call them wars anymore anyway, just conflicts.
"Police actions" and "foreign interventions" and "humanitarian missions".
Pockets of resistance
nah nah we fight proxy economic wars. we make other nations fight our wars of interest through political/economic influences. the only time we go to war is if its fucked up so bad that their is no stable govt there anymore.... aaaaand taliban and isis came from that power vacuum
This is what I do in Civ anyway
The last time the U.S. declared formal war against a foreign nation was 1942 against Romania.
The last three times the U.S. was involved in "military engagements" that were sanctioned by congress were Iraq 2003/1991 and Afghanistan 2001.
The Civil war wasn't even a war, since the Union didn't recognise the Confederacy as a legitimate government (whatever that means) so it was just an internal rebellion that was squashed.
Likewise the Indian wars weren't wars since the U.S. didn't recognise them as a state. Which means it was just genocide.
No no no, these aren't prisoners of wars, then they'd be protected under the Geneva convention. These are detainees, totally different.
Can’t be prisoners if they’re summarily executed \*taps head*
America hasn't declared war since World War 2. The Korean War, Vietnam, the two wars in Iraq and the War on Terror were just military engagements.
[Sounds neat, terrible idea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHHtp9O7W0k) Wouldn't stop every other country from starting wars. All it would do is cripple our ability to negotiate. Nobody else would ever trust us to back them up, and nobody else would ever believe us when we threatened limits. Just think about how easy it is to manipulate a country's politics through disinformation--imagine an enemy country spreading disinformation to cripple us from actually fighting. If we had this law we never would have supported the Allies in WWII. (And of course, this proposed law was deliberately tailored in order to prevent the US from intervening in WWI)
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth collapsed largely because it took away too many powers from the central government. It got to the point where its neighbors simply bribed small groups of people to gridlock the whole country.
This idea only appeals to the American psyche because we've had a very fortunate history as a powerful country with no geopolitical threats for virtually our entire existence. We don't like the idea of forcing our people to fight, because unlike the rest of the world we've never *really* had to. The Russians and Chinese have no such qualms-- their entire existence has been threatened by invasions dozens of times over the last thousand years, they are intimately comfortable with their leadership telling them it is time to fight. The thing is, we don't live in the 18th century anymore, the world is completely global and America isolating itself helps nobody. Laws like this would needlessly restrict our government's ability to assert itself on the global stage and would only lead to more conflict--the threat of retaliation would be gone entirely, and other world powers would see it as open season to do whatever they want. As if China or Russia wouldn't immediately take advantage of this sort of law to start conflicts without having to worry about America stepping in. What would stop Russia from immediately rolling through Eastern Europe, or China from attacking Taiwan? Our diplomats saying "Watch out, we might stop you if we put it to a national vote that was deliberately designed to be incredibly unpopular"? They'd laugh at our face as they immediately deployed massive social media campaigns to convince the average American that it isn't worth the fight. Just the loss of the *threat* of US military force would immediately lead to more conflicts around the world.
Not to mention, this law was proposed back when we still operated with a draft. While the draft still exists as a possibility, the nature of modern warfare and the US military is such that we have little-to-no use for an actual draft anymore (Wars are won by technology, not numbers. A highly paid specialist sitting in an air-conditioned facility in Texas piloting drones is magnitudes more reliable and effective than a hastily trained draftee who is given a rifle and a helmet), and as it stands we have a volunteer military anyways. Anyone who is fighting for our country is a willing participant.
Only if every country implements this at the same time... Imagine being the first to do this.
“What do you mean Pennsylvania has to do a recount? We've already lost Hawaii and they are landing in Cali!... And Texas ran out of voting papers? Dammit...”
Not really. Royalty literally used to do this. We had wars lasting over 100 years with this arrangement.
This is full reddit "wow I'm super deep" tier. It's the mindless illiterate bullshit this website is famous for.
Replies are switched off. Scream your autistic garbage into the void. I promise I won't hear you.
IIRC, tons of royalty died in battle as recently as WWI.
It happened, but royalty/nobility were actually mostly fine within a feudal system. Not only did battles use to be way less lethal than nowadays, but high-ranking people were also more valuable as hostages for ransom than dead. If they died an early death, it was usually due to disease (which in and of itself usually claimed as many, if not more lives during wars than actual battles).
The invention of firearms did make accidental killings more common though, as you could no longer become borderline invulnerable by wearing a full suit of plate armor.
It's also incredibly stupid from the military effectiveness standpoint. The reason why casualties from Vietnam were so high is because of conscription. There's a good reason the US moved to an AVF.
Turns out volunteers with years of training beat out people forced to fight in a foreign country with minimal training. Who would have thought it.
Until you realize that terrorists in the middle east have no problem signing up, and no Americans think "hm yeah I want to go out into a war where I could get vaporized by a VIBED, or even just a regular IED, pretty much everywhere, fighting against enemies that play dirty"
You guys would lose 10% of your population and have the most unorganized war in history and then necer vote for a war again.
Most Americans don’t know shit about foreign countries. How can we expect them to know whether or not they should go to war with one of them?
I get the virtue but what about the elderly and the disabled?
Their time is up
First wheelchair brigade! Attack!
My time is now.
I WAS CHOSEN BY HEAVEN
My thought exactly. Are they not allowed to vote for the war since they’d be, effectively, sending others to fight for them? Or would they still be asked to serve in the military in roles more suited for their positions in life, i.e. non-combat roles?
What about parents? If both parents(or a single parent) voted for war, do they get an exemption for taking care of the child?
Or for that matter, the mentally disabled?
Lots of very open questions here.
It's an emotion-driven policy proposal. Just make a volunteer army. The typical reddit 'stick it to the fatcats and politicians' bullshit always leads to people thinking shit like this makes sense.
If grandma thinks that we should declare war after another nation attacks us at Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, Guam, and The Philippines then she can be the one to go fight because she's an evil person /reddit logic
my mom will be manning the helicopter door machine gun.
Isn't the president already the head of the armed forces?
You can't really be president without being part of the army.
He will be moved from the head of all the military to infantry. Apparently
As a veteran, 100% yes.
As a veteran, no fucking thanks.
Also as a veteran, this is a horrible idea.
This is a terrible idea. You’d get a bunch of asshole war mongers who love the idea of war but are probably out of shape as fuck and untrained and would get the guys to their left and right killed immediately in a fire fight because they wouldn’t even know wtf they’re doing.
As someone who’s currently still in, this is a terrible fucking idea
Not to mention that a direct negative impact from voting a certain way is the definition of coercion. If we vote on wars, we need to vote on wars, you can't add a rider that is essentially a direct punishment on someone for voting in a democracy. They can suffer the consequences of their vote, but it can't just be "bad thing happens to you if you don't vote how we want."
It also creates many scenarios where war or military actions WOULD be justified where the US would be rendered inert and unable to act because there would never be enough votes to actually enter a war, or we would just go back to doing what we do now and start waging war without calling it that formally.
As someone who has put more than 2 seconds of thought into the idea, 100% no.
Civilian command structure?
Right of bodily autonomy?
Have a volunteer-based army, if you want. You don't need to tear at the seams of democracy to fulfil this idea a different way.
Being a vet doesn't make your opinion more relevant here. Surely, it's those who have not served that would be more affected. I don't mean to disrespect your own service though.
Also the military would still only take able bodied men under a certain age. That pool would be a significant minority; a majority could vote for war and never see the front while we would potentially still need to draft no-voters
Finally someone ITT acknowledges that putting random grandmothers and weaklings on the front lines would not be a good idea.
There is already a war tax. It's called tax. The budget includes a standing army.
“Why don’t presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?”
Because a military isn't just a bunch of privates running around unorganised with rifles.
Similar to how companies aren't all just people on the floor stacking boxes.
There is division of labour.
Why isn't the guy on the radio shooting the Bren gun? ... well... because he is on the radio...
Probably for the same reason high ranking military officials don't directly see combat: they're too valuable of an asset to lose in a firefight. I'm all for the idea of a leader who fights his own battles but having the highest ranking military official on the front lines is a recipe for disaster. Someone has to lead the troops, something they can't do if they're dead.
I completely agree. It also puts the soldiers at risk. If you are in a heavy war zone and its announced the president is going to Camp X, and the enemy sees that they may focus on attacking that base.
Well someone doesnt listen to system of a down
B. Y. O. B
"you depend on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth"
"la la la la la la la la la oooooh"
Everybody’s going to the party have a real good time
I have a feeling this would infact be a terrible idea ....at least volunteer militaries exist because they want to.
Some people.do NOT need to be in the military ..
How about we create a pathway for national referendums on how we want the government to be run in the first place.
I've said this for years
But the President is already in the Army.
There's a reason this never got put into effect; it's a stupid idea.
Most people are not fit for military service. What, are we going to put your diabetic grandfather on the front lines since he voted yes?
Say it required a simple majority vote to pass. What the hell is the Army going to do with that many people? Even the massively overfunded U.S. military doesn't have the logistical capabilities to handle 150+ million people.
Logistically this couldn't work because a lot of old and unhealthy people would vote yes then get refused by the military
This is fucking stupid. The US has never been to war since WW2 ended, everything since has been an “armed conflict.”
Posts like this are a good reminder of how young and stupid Reddit’s demographic is.
No more poor people fighting the rich man’s war. If we want a war, it is everyone’s war.
Well, nobody was forcing you to fight them now. You had all those guns they gave you, right?
Just vote no and have all of your employees vote yes. Your vote wouldnt count much anyways
Look I’m as anti-war as the next guy but this is just fucking idiotic. If this law had been passed we’d all be speaking German and Heiling Hitler regularly.
Kind of a shit idea unless every single nation in the world had the same law
I say we reintroduce that bill.... put up or shut up time for the "I woulda joined up, but _______" crowd
The issue is that it primarily gives the decision of going to war to the young and possibly reckless. Those are the most able fighters afterall, so they’d have the most representation in the matter.
Which in one hand does make sense but look at your average military grunt and tell me if you’d like them to be the people that decide
Also I may not be down to go fight in a war, but i would still like a say if we start a conflict that can lead to my home being bombed. The idea here seems to run entirely on the idea that wars can’t be fought here and only happen overseas
I think this kind of bill would seem cool if passed up until an American city gets the equivalent of carpet bombed and suddenly a lot of people feel like they didn’t have proper representation in the matter
USA would have had a truce with Nazi germany if this was voted in.
Weren't most ww2 soldiers were volunteers? There was a lot more patriotism back then.
It's worth pointing out that this was very popular due to the draft nature of the military at the time. And, later in the 20's and 30's (especially the later) it was HUGELY popular...because america had a huuuuge isolationist streak.
It also would have allowed the government to sieze anything that could be used in the war effort, including workers, and pay essentially the same thing that the cost had been the previous year plus a small bit, like 3% i think it was.
When you consider this would undoubtedly have prevented the US entering WW2 it doesn't sound like such a great idea.
Let’s declare war against Fiji. I’ll be first to sign up and I’ll go scout it out, let everyone know what Intel I find after 6 months.
This is stupid and it’s no wonder it doesn’t work that way
I like how this was proposed during WW1, a war that US could have ended way earlier, simply by joining in.
Would only service age citizens be allowed to vote or were there plans on creating 50+ mine clearing divisions?
So politicians basically had to vote no
How would this work? Isn’t voting supposed to be anonymous?
As good as this sounds, far few people would be willing to vote for something nessesary if they had to do it too.
Well so much for anonymous voting, I’m sure that’ll go well
What if you can’t serve? Like if you’re psychically handicapped or something
So the government would track your vote? That seems like a bad idea. Also, what's to stop someone from not voting?
The president wouldn’t have to enlist because they are already technically part of the army. They are the commander in chief of the armed forces.
The u.s gets attacked then a few months later when everyone's done voting we can respond lol
Deciding whether to go to war based on a popular vote is absolutely horrifying
Then people just wouldn’t vote. Only the people who disagree would. You’re encouraging people to vote one side
> The amendment came closest to overcoming a discharge petition on January 10, 1938, when it was defeated in Congress by a vote of 209 to 188. The difference in votes may have been provided by Postmaster General James Farley, who Roosevelt asked to sway the votes of the Irish Congressmen who were isolationists. Despite Roosevelt's fears, this vote was far short of the two-thirds vote required by both houses of Congress (290 in the House) for later passage of a constitutional amendment.
Basically this was never even close to passing
*Pearl Harbor gets attacked*
"And we're into the sixth week of War voting as over 14 federal law suits have been filed due to alleged voter fraud"
This law would’ve been the worst decision in modern history.
That’s a terrible idea