SeanEdwards
07-17-2008, 04:06 PM
Major General Smedley Butler was right. In his book "War is a Racket", the two-time Medal of Honor recipient opined that declarations of war should require a majority vote by a limited plebiscite of voters composed only of those people capable and willing to bear arms in service to the country.
It’s clear that our representative government can not be trusted to obey the wishes of the people in regards to the fundamental issue of whether or not the nation should engage in war. We now have an imperial tsar Presidency and a rubber-stamp legislature, and that system has brought this nation decades of dirty little wars, and most recently a war in Iraq that is opposed by the majority of the voters.
War is too important to be left in the hands of the politicians. We need a Constitutional Amendment that transfers the authority to declare war away from Congress —they won’t mind, they haven’t wanted this authority for at least 60 years—and places it in the hands of the people who will actually be called upon to fight in support of the declaration. Call it the chicken hawk amendment, perhaps.
Good, bad, ugly? What do you think?
It’s clear that our representative government can not be trusted to obey the wishes of the people in regards to the fundamental issue of whether or not the nation should engage in war. We now have an imperial tsar Presidency and a rubber-stamp legislature, and that system has brought this nation decades of dirty little wars, and most recently a war in Iraq that is opposed by the majority of the voters.
War is too important to be left in the hands of the politicians. We need a Constitutional Amendment that transfers the authority to declare war away from Congress —they won’t mind, they haven’t wanted this authority for at least 60 years—and places it in the hands of the people who will actually be called upon to fight in support of the declaration. Call it the chicken hawk amendment, perhaps.
Good, bad, ugly? What do you think?