Why are we not funding this. . i% ll' lla tun fact if In 1916 an amendment was proposed bathe Constitution that all acts sf war would be put to a national vote.
x
Click to expand

Why are we not funding this

i% ll' lla tun fact if
In 1916 an amendment was proposed bathe
Constitution that all acts sf war would be put to a
national vote. Anyone voting yes had ta register as
a volunteer fer service in the United States Army.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2325
Views: 70746
Favorited: 137
Submitted: 04/22/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to zanoman submit to reddit

Comments(352):

[ 352 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - voltkills (04/22/2014) [+] (34 replies)
while the second part is a bit **** , having all acts of war put to a referendum makes alot of sense if you ask me.
#22 - nitsuan (04/22/2014) [+] (20 replies)
>Something bad happens
>Most Americans want war
>Most say yes
>Most go to war
>No one at home to support the war effort
>genius!

While it does seem like an interesting idea to have a vote, the second part is as impractical as it comes.
User avatar #5 - pheonixinstinct ONLINE (04/22/2014) [+] (9 replies)
if it takes a majority vote to win then a majority of the population joins the active military. you cant have half of your countries population in the military and still be a functioning country.
#69 - bosman (04/22/2014) [+] (5 replies)
Thought this sounded a bit questionable. Decided to look it up. So first off, this is somewhat accurate.
1. There was in fact a proposed amendment (the Ludlow Amendment) that would have put declarations of war to national referendum,
2. It was put forth multiple times between 1935 and 1840, not 1916,
3. It would not have required people who voted yes to serve but the idea was that the people who would potentially fight the war should have a say.

Problems:
1. Putting a decision like this to a vote would take far too much time,
2. If there was an act of aggression against the US then their armed forces couldn't technically respond with full force without first having a vote, therefore leading to them being an ineffective fighting force,
3. Remember, the US has only declared war 5 times in its history but has engaged in many conflicts, which would be exempt from the vote,
4. With the current set of presidential powers war is effectively waged without declaration so this would be pointless,
5. It is really just simply quite stupid.

Also, the senator who put it forth believed that if the US did it then magically the rest of the world would abandon their power and protection for some weird sort of international communal security through no security at all and put an end to wars. Just some weird Utopian internationalist dream.

As a student of history at university it drives me insane that, with the accessibility of information via the internet, that there are so many mistakes with this post. I would have assumed that wtffunfact would have resident fact-checkers to ensure that their content was accurate.
User avatar #7 - comicexplain ONLINE (04/22/2014) [+] (2 replies)
I love it.
#75 - snood ONLINE (04/22/2014) [+] (5 replies)
Great idea, how about we vote on abolishing the fire department, but if you think we shouldn't then you have to become a firefighter.
#117 - freedombirdman (04/23/2014) [+] (4 replies)
Defending the nation is one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government. Putting it to a national vote would be far too cumbersome, especially with today's fast paced warfare. As it is a form of this is already in place, as Congress is technically supposed to approve all declarations of war (The fact that this rule has not been followed since WWII is an argument for another day).

Additionally, requiring those who vote yes to war to serve might be illogical. There are plenty of people who are incapable of fighting (children, the elderly, parents with families to take care of) that still have the right to be protected. There is a reason we use a volunteer force.
#177 - swagbot (04/23/2014) [+] (15 replies)
For those saying "We are supposed to have a Big Army RUN by the Federal Government."

Wrong. Dead Wrong.

Here are the ONLY parts of the Constitution that deal with Unified National Defense: en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
...and...
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 1:

Pay Close Attention to A1, S8, P12:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

What do these sections tell us?
We were never supposed to have a Standing Army! We were supposed to have State Militias who would be bound together under the Authority of The President (and given additional arms/training if necessary) to suppress insurrections or Repel Invasions. Then, they would go back to being farmers / whatever. Permanent Military Careers breed a sickness into the Mind and the Culture, and our Founders knew that.

Then, coupled with the 10th Amendment, it is clear that these are merely *suggestions* for one way of providing for the common defense - Individual States may form any policy / cooperative policy for defense as they see fit.

A Draft is 100%, Patently, Unthinkably Unconstitutional, as is the massive, bloated military we have nowadays, and the TRILLIONS we spend on it, so that... what?... they can sit in military bases doing make-work?

The U.S. was supposed to be (and actually was, for a while around 1860s-1920s) so productive that no nation on Earth would dare try to wage aggressive war on us... and eventually, our productivity would enrich the world to a point where War might've been a thing of the past.

But Oh, how far we have strayed.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcdRCWEt4Q
User avatar #210 - jacklane (04/23/2014) [-]
*had to
*volunteer
#152 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (04/23/2014) [+] (8 replies)
Not really necessary, before the end of WW2, we had to worry about massive mobilization and national war support.

Post-WWII we saw the introduction of the Military Industrial Complex, which provided an active military spending budget to keep an active military in the event of going to war, so we didn't have to wait to mobilize. Nor did the people have to worry about issues like lack of consumer goods, thus resulting in rationing.

The Military Industrial Complex sufficed.

Of course, early on it wasn't perfect, as proven by the Vietnam War, which was truly an "unwinnable" war, especially after the Tet Offensive which completely ruined LBJ with the credibility gap.

More on though, after the surge of conservatism of the 1980's with Reagan, the military conflicts we've been involved in was in the most convenient terms, supported by voluntary war effort after the damage of the government's image was repaired, anyway.



#148 - kingantichrist (04/23/2014) [+] (1 reply)
>Politics on the internet
#256 - fefe (04/23/2014) [+] (1 reply)
Addy banned me for 'using a thumb script' in reality I was just down thumbing all the dumb comments on his party **** page
#261 to #256 - dehnoobshow ONLINE (04/23/2014) [-]
That's like going on the brony board and thumbing down all posts because it relates to ponies. Basically, you thumbed down a lot of people in a short amount of time.   
With boards, chanels and parties, the rule is: Don't like the content in general? Then get the 			****		 out.
That's like going on the brony board and thumbing down all posts because it relates to ponies. Basically, you thumbed down a lot of people in a short amount of time.
With boards, chanels and parties, the rule is: Don't like the content in general? Then get the **** out.
User avatar #228 - nustix (04/23/2014) [-]
While I understand peoples concerns with the idea. I think it's more of a case that they try to show people what going to war means. When they have to volunteer themselves people will more likely vote no, because they don't want to go to war themselves they just want some people who mean nothing to them to go across the world and give their lives.
User avatar #217 - shodaihokage (04/23/2014) [-]
Honestly the only time one should be forced to fight in a war would be if their country was being invaded.
#185 - mrgoodlove (04/23/2014) [-]
I don't think we'd ever go to war again.
#171 - lordraine ONLINE (04/23/2014) [+] (4 replies)
Because some people are disabled, sick, too old, or otherwise unable to serve, and yet still deserve to have their opinion heard on whether or not we should involve ourselves in a war, you ******* asstard.
User avatar #13 - reginleif ONLINE (04/22/2014) [+] (1 reply)
I'm not even that pro war and I can see the flaws in this system.

Wars are decided now more than ever on first strike and rapid response capabilities, by the time an election was held we'd either lose half our forces or the enemy would have time to prepare.

US would be much more susceptible to Psy Ops tactics, where the population would be influenced by another country and maybe make decisions not in our best interests. Right now, China, Russia, Britain, and North Korea have people all up on our net trying to sway popular opinions.

England had huge successes with this type of propaganda with their spy program whose purpose was it to dupe Americans into wanting to join the European front. They infiltrated nearly every major media source we had.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Coordination

And finally no, we're not a democracy, we're a republic if you have a problem with people voting for war you can always recall them. That is how the people can affect policy, this legislation isn't necessary.

Goyim

#145 - fefe (04/23/2014) [+] (22 replies)
US armed forces is voluntary "at the moment". Supporting that people actually are volunteering for conflicts based on their views, yes not everyone does,  but think of it like this if a conflict does arise and you're in the US military you're giving America your hand to do what AMERICA DECIDES, read the oath you have to repeat and sign in order to be in the US military, you throw the right to decide what's right, willingly though, (if a higher rank tells you, u do it, or dishonorable discharge which we hear so much about them because they're so well loved and taken care of) to become a paid apparently morally correct murderer or an accessory to murder(thats why I didn't join). If u think you had no where else to go besides the military and joined then you deserve to do awful things and hate yourself for it, I wanted to be a chef on a aircraft carrier and cook for 3000+, but I refuse to feed murders regardless if your my blood brother or not doing any wrong you're apart of it willingly.
US armed forces is voluntary "at the moment". Supporting that people actually are volunteering for conflicts based on their views, yes not everyone does, but think of it like this if a conflict does arise and you're in the US military you're giving America your hand to do what AMERICA DECIDES, read the oath you have to repeat and sign in order to be in the US military, you throw the right to decide what's right, willingly though, (if a higher rank tells you, u do it, or dishonorable discharge which we hear so much about them because they're so well loved and taken care of) to become a paid apparently morally correct murderer or an accessory to murder(thats why I didn't join). If u think you had no where else to go besides the military and joined then you deserve to do awful things and hate yourself for it, I wanted to be a chef on a aircraft carrier and cook for 3000+, but I refuse to feed murders regardless if your my blood brother or not doing any wrong you're apart of it willingly.
User avatar #89 - KayRed (04/22/2014) [+] (13 replies)
You don't fund an amendment dumbass.
User avatar #93 to #91 - KayRed (04/23/2014) [-]
You fund research, you fund political campaigns, you fund projects, you don't fun amendments or bills. Amendments and bills might lead to funding, but you don't fund them. THEY ARE ******* IDEAS AND PIECES OF PAPER!

So to answer your question, yes, I do know much about American politics, and I know a ******** more about basic logic than you.
#88 - fefe (04/22/2014) [+] (8 replies)
Personally, I think that seems like a good idea, but then you'd have to take into account the millions of aging war hawks that wouldn't be able to serve.

America could always just implement the mandatory two-year service that most of Europe has. That could work. It might keep our people in a bit better shape.
#106 to #88 - neverunderstand (04/23/2014) [-]
I wouldn't want our military to take everyone. Especially not those who don't want to be there, but are simply compelled.
[ 352 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)