Who's with me on working toward a new Constitutional Amendment?

[Redstone]

(I'd appreciate any help in fine-tuning the language.)

No military forces of the United States may be committed to combat for ANY reason, except under one of the following conditions:

1) To fulfill a treaty obligation;

2) To defend a territory of the United States from attack; or

3) To defend those who cannot defend themselves (i.e Sarajevo, Kosovo, Darfur, or the like).

And in any case, combat operations shall be authorized only by a three-quarters majority vote by BOTH the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Such combat operations shall be terminated within sixty days of a vote of a simple majority of EITHER the House of Representative OR the Senate.

OK, I don't have the political expertise to wrap this in the correct language, but you get the idea. What do you think? Is this an idea that we should all help get kick-started?

Think of what we might have avoided, if this were part of the Constitution: Viet Nam. Grenada. Panama. Iraq.

A truly civilized country would have this in its constitution. What say you?


Redstone

[Bucky]

1. Before we go after a process that requires about 70% approval around the country....

....what say we just concentrate on electing a Democratic president--something that will take only about 55% of the voters behind us to get it done.

[Redstone]

3. I'm not trying to set any timetables, just putting an idea out for discussion.

Redstone

[Bucky]

5. I'm not shooting down you idea, just making a joke.

I call it a "soft kick".

If I'm gonna be serious about critiquing your suggestion, I'll still say it's a bad idea. You shouldn't build policy into the Constitution--not prohibition, not flag burning, not balanced budget, not definitions of marriage. Those things are policies and they change over time as the country's interests shift and evolve.

The Constitution is for structuring the government and defining its relationship with the citizens, not impulsive reactions to the bad policies of the moment. An approach I would support is an amendment refining the war powers of Congress, so thta any deployment of troops requires either a declaration of war or a periodic reauthorization. But if we had your amendment in place in 1999, there'd be tens of thousands more dead Albanian Kosovars and Slobodan Milosevic would have died a fat happy man.

[Redstone]

6. Not so. Did you read the part about "defending those who can't defend themselves?"

Redstone

[Bucky]

12. That's a tad subjective, if by "tad" you understand I mean "entirely"

You want general language in the Constitution, but not deliberately vague language.

You're still trying to write policy into the Constitution. It won't work. No serious Constitutional scholar would go for this. No legislature would ratify it.

[Redstone]

21. Got a POSITIVE suggestion, do you? How would YOU make another Iraq debacle illegal?

I'm looking for positive suggestions here, not "it won't work" whines.

If my ideas won't work, what WOULD?

If you have better ideas, let's hear them. That's why I started this thread.

Redstone

[Kelly Rupert]

26. By this point, you are getting to

"If my ideas for perpetual motion machines won't work, what WOULD? Let's hear YOUR ideas!"

[Demeter]

2. There are a LOT of Amendments That Would Have To Come Along

Not sure where this one would fit in the order of importance...any tightening of the Constitution to keep the riff-raff and pirates out of government would be helpful.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. First, we need this one

No individual right guaranteed by this Constitution, or which is derived therefrom, shall be construed as applying to any corporate entity.

Strip corporations of their alleged right to interfere with our democracy, and we will go very far in preventing another Iraq invasion.

[Redstone]

7. I'm all for that one. That would be an excellent amendment, and one that the

Founders could never have concieved the need for.

Your amendment should be proposed and passed NOW. (Disclosure: I am a business owner, and therefore a capitalist. Nonetheless, I would wholeheartedly support your suggested amendment.)

Redstone

[LiberalFighter]

9. It should be proposed now. And continue to propose until it passes the House and Senate.

It may not pass for several years but if proposed and voted on every year it will eventually get passed.

[bigmonkey]

11. Actually, ...

It's my understanding that the only reason corporations are not heavily regulated in the U.S. Federal constitution is that the founders felt it would be redundant - they were already so heavily constrained by the state constitutions. They were very familiar with the predations of corporations, viz. the Hudson Bay Company.

[kiahzero]

14. Do you understand the consequence of such an amendment?

For instance, if the feds wanted to take the DU servers, they could. Without any sort of due process. Without fair compensation. Without probable cause. Why? Because DU is a limited liability corporation and therefore would not have any Constitutional rights.

Hey... maybe a Washington pol wants your phone records. Well, he could get them without a subpoena, because your phone company, being a corporation, doesn't have the ability to challenge the search.

In a historical example, this case would have gone entirely the other way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. So you have no problem with corporations buying elections as their due "First Amendment rights?"

That is how corporations are able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidate campaigns, and millions of dollars to political parties. That is why attempts to reign in their corrupting influence has always failed.

If you can come up with something better, I'm all ears.

[kiahzero]

24. I'm not sure there is a solution

Perhaps I'm simply not creative enough, but any rules I can come up with would also bar organizations like the NAACP, ACLU, or others from donating or buying political advertising.

[Occulus]

31. Not if they're not corporations

That's the part the people who think this would affect other businesses or organizations at all just don't understand: this would apply to corporations only.

If you don't want o run afoul of the proposed Amendment, don't get a corporate charter.

Very. Very. Simple.

[kiahzero]

35. There are significant disadvantages to doing so.

Do you think DU is an LLC just because Skinner felt like it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. And why would that be a bad thing?

INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, and only individual people, should have those rights. Special interest groups of every stripe corrupt our democracy when they are allowed to interfere with elections.

[Occulus]

30. Easy answer to that

Don't incorporate.

Simple.

[Solon]

40. You could differentiate the difference between non-profit and for-profit corporations...

There is a key difference between the two that's already differentiated through IRS codes. Non-profits, whether tax exempt or not, are formed for either political purposes or religious purposes. For-Profits are organized to limit the liability of individual investors in running a business.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. You don't have it quite right

Churches and other religious organizations are ONE of a great many organizations that fall under the tax code section 501(c)(3). Those groups may be any of: "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the preventing cruelty to children or animals." (see the United States Internal Revenue Service web page on charitable organizations.

Any and all groups recognized by the IRS under §501(c)(3) are prohibited from any and all political activity, be it a non-profit school, a medical research facility, the United States Olympic Committee, the ASPCA or the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, this is the one and only legal recognition in the tax code for religious organizations, and they are classed as the legal equivalent to all other charitable organizations.

Political organizations are recognized by the IRS under section 527. As such, the tax rules about what they can and can not do are different. While §501(c)(3) groups and §527 groups are both "non-profit," it is like saying that apples and tomatoes are both fruits: technically true while at the same time completely meaningless. All non-profits are tax exempt (by definition of "non-profit," otherwise they are "not-for-profit") and there is not and can not be any intersection of tax-exempt political groups with tax-exempt religious groups.

[Solon]

42. I hate quoting myself here, but...

Non-profits, whether tax exempt or not...

Now, I could have listed every type of non-profit out there, but I also know that those that are designed to lobby politicians or to forward specific political views, or endorse candidates, aren't 501(c)(3) organizations. Attribute it to laziness, I figured that folks would get my point and know what tax-exempt non-profits can and can't do. Of course, there are always gray areas, such as the Catholic Church's interference in political campaigns recently, especially in my area, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

8. An amendment that I have advocated for several years...

Prohibit any descendant of Prescott Bush from holding any elected or appointed position in local, state or federal government.

[RL3AO]

10. To defend those who cannot defend themselves

Very vauge. Some would argue that the people of Iraq could not defend themselves before we invaded.

[Redstone]

13. No. I was very clear with my examples, so let's not try to muddy the waters with

posts like that, shall we?

Just some friendly advice, which you'd be well-advised to take.

Redstone

[RL3AO]

15. You dont put examples in the constitution.

[Redstone]

23. I asked for input. Do you have anything? It's damn easy to be negative, but harder to

say "that's not a good idea, but THIS might be a better one..."

Got anything to contribute? I did ask for ideas, not just "it won't work" comments.

Redstone

[RL3AO]

29. The President is already limited enough about using the military

I know that wont thrill you, but the President is the Commander in Chief and shouldnt have to ask congress for every little mission he plans.

[Occulus]

32. We're talking about going to war in the first placew

But you knew that already, didn't you?

[bigmonkey]

16. Pardons.

"The Executive may only pardon natural persons who have been convicted of the crime being pardoned."

No more pre-emptive pardons - they destroy accountability to the law. You could add some clause about not pardoning anyone who works or has worked for him, but this simple clarification would, I think, greatly improve the situation.

[Occulus]

33. I would add to the end of that one:

"...pardoned. The executive shall be prohibited from issuing a pardon to any member of any branch while he remains the Executive, and the Executive shall be prohibited from issuing a pardon to any member of any branch occupying a position under his predecessor.

For the purposes of this Amendment, 'members' shall consist of those persons who occupy any official position in any branch of the Federal government, as well as any and all ancillary personnel."

I don't want any President- be they a Democrat or a Republican- to be able to pardon anyone who served in any government position- be they a member of Congress, or a lowly aide- while that President sits in the Oval office, and I want his successor to be unable to do the same for anyone who served in that administration.

I want to make it impossible to get away with criminal, treasonous misdeeds because "the Prez sez."

[Odin2005]

17. Number 3 should be re-worded, it's too vague.

Vague clauses are easily abused. It should say "to stop regimes committing crimes against humanity" or something similar.

[Redstone]

20. Well, that's why I asked for advice in my original post. Thank you for responding to my request,

instead of nit-picking like some others have done. I think that your proposed language has merit.

Redstone

[Xenotime]

18. How about just no more wars period.

[RL3AO]

22. You can never know whats going to happen in the future.

If that was passed in the mid 30's, it would be a much different world.

[Kelly Rupert]

25. Well, I don't think it'll have any teeth,

if only because there doesn't exist any wording that couldn't be reasonably spun to justify any war. The first could be used to justify any or all of the wars you listed, taking treaty obligations to France, Britain, and the like; one could even make the claim that Iraq was fulfilling UN obligations, due to Iraq's supposed violations of numerous resolutions. The second could justify all the above as well, on an abstract level. The third, obviously, could be easily overapplied; usually when we invade we cite the "oppressed" citizens we're about to "liberate" with JDAMs as a reason for war.

I don't think it's possible to illegalize war and have it stick. Even Japan has sent troops to Iraq.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. I'd rather put the War Powers Resolution into the constitution

I don't have a problem with the President having the ability to take limited combat actions without authorization from Congress, which is particularly important during times of emergency.

The problem is that while Congress has the power to declare war, they don't have the power to un-declare war. IMO, this should be an inherent constitutional power, kind of like the President's inherent power to fire appointees.

[beyurslf]

28. The Gulf of Tonkin vote was passed overwhelmingly.

Spanish American war and the War of 1812 would never have occurred. The first Gulf War in the 1990's would not have occurred. We would not have intervened in Kosovo. The current Iraq debacle would have almost passed this requirement. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States>

In any case, the Commander in Chief may need to use force without approval from Congress to protect the country in extreme circumstances. An example of this would be the attack at Pearl Harbor. Had this been in the Constitution, FDR would have needed to have Congress authorize our troops to fight back rather than sit there and die. An exception for this should be in there.
I don't understand why we would allow either the House or the Senate to halt combat without approval from the other. Shouldn't it be a majority of both the House and the Senate? Newt Gingrinch could round up a majority to vote for anything in the 90's.
How would we define an attack? Bush supporters would say we are currently "under attack" and defending ourselves in Iraq. We, of course, know this is not correct, but who decides that? Couldn't 3/4 of Congress simply authorize the combat regardless of the preceding 3 reasons that are listed? What mechanism would stop them?

[SPKrazy]

34. The 3/4 part troubles me

I mean what if some country were to influence legislators through the almighty dollar not to vote for something as serious as this.

We live in a world less and less governed by boundaries of countries when it comes to international business. legislators here have long since been bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

both sides guilty in my opinion. i've seen it happen more on the big bidness side of things, the repukikans but the fear i have is that this could cut into the ability to defend ourselves in an attack. (if I'm reading your proposed idea here)

otherwise i totally agree that there has to be some kind of measure taken or b*sh or whoever might be in power, more likely a neocon imperialistic type, but anyone could use the military to achieve their personal goals or ambitions. this has been proven completely by the fact that we have b*sh and we are in iraq right now!

i like the concept though, and there should be ways to incorporate language that makes it workable.

:thumbsup:

[Selatius]

36. It's good, but my recommendation would be to delete article 3) or reword it

It's not that I don't sympathize with people who are incapable of defending themselves, but the US military was established primarily to defend the US, not necessarily oppose every tyranny abroad.

At any rate, the article should not supercede UN prohibitions on aggressive war. (e.g. The US attacking Sudan outside of UN mandate for what is happening in Darfur)

At this point, I am very tempted to simply state that the only reason that the US should mobilize forces for any combat is if some nation was about to invade or attack the US and that the best course of action would simply be to dump the article altogether instead of trying to reword it.

If anybody wants to fight tyranny so bad, then they and others of like minds can form militias and travel abroad to fight tyranny, just like thousands of Americans went to Spain to fight against Franco and his forces during their civil war, but they should not do it on the dime of the taxpayers because the US military was established to protect the people of the US, not the world.

[Thothmes]

38. Amendment

I could go along with sections 1 & 2. IMO section 3 is a non starter. Who appointed us defenders of anyone other than our own countrymen. The Tibetans are defenseless in the face of the Peoples Liberation Army, do we dust up with the Chinese? The kurds were defenseless against the Iraqi forces of Saddam. Your amendment would have allowed Clinton to start the War in Iraq 9 years earlier. What about Chechen's, shall we have a go at the Russians? Kosovo & Sarajavo were Nato operations of which we were obligated to By Treaty to participate in. If the world community sees Darfur as requiring military aid, let the UN initiate and lead the operation. We could supply troops since we are a signatory of the UN Charter.

[Solon]

39. I feel it doesn't go far enough...

No military forces of the United States may be committed to combat for ANY reason, except under one of the following conditions:

1) To defend a territory of the United States from attack; or

2) To fulfill a treaty obligation; or

3) To be used for peacekeeping purposes to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide

In addition, under conditions 2 and 3, the United States cannot unilaterally decide to go to war, but must submit to an international authority for use of force, either the UN, NATO, or some other international organization. In any case, the United States cannot go to war without an express declaration for war to be approved by Congress.