This was proposed in a 1937 article as a 22nd amendment to the Constitution: part one part two
Re:Unitary Executive
jdavidb on 2006-07-25T07:06:55
The events that precipitated the use of military force in Afghanistan and Iraq would probably have passed easily.
... Interesting idea for an Amendment but I think we have too much warmongering in us as a country to ever have it succeed. Depends how you define succeed. Some would argue that if the majority would in fact vote for a war then it should pass. The point of the amendment was not to prevent all wars, and not even to prevent all wrong wars, but to prevent the federal government from committing the people to wars they did not support.
After posting this far and wide in several places, I was told about a similar amendment proposed in our day, which would have required that after the war passed a referendum that it be 100% financially supported by those who voted for it, and everyone who voted for it be required to enlist.
:) Of course, this is even closer to how I think things should be: if you believe in a cause, support it yourself. If it's not believable enough to convince other people to voluntarily support it, then it must not be that important (or else there are other issues that are even more important). In no case is it ever moral to force people to support YOUR view of what should be done. Re:Unitary Executive
chromatic on 2006-08-08T18:57:27
In no case is it ever moral to force people to support YOUR view of what should be done.That has immense implications for taxation.
Re:Unitary Executive
jdavidb on 2006-08-08T19:13:29
Yes it does, and I enthusiastically agree with all of those implications.
