TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 60 pts

Because their taxes will also pay for the war. The amendment has to many holes to implement properly.

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 40 pts

You don't get direct say, you vote to elect those that do. If this amendment passed, the elderly would no longer even have an indirect say in how it was spent.

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 2 pts

The war would have a direct vote, not a vote by a representative. So the decision to spend a great deal of money would no longer be something they could directly vote on, or indirectly be represented for.

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

That opens up a whole new can of worms. What would happen if we deployed troops, then the next time a vote came around everyone voted down the continued funding? The troops are just left there? What happens with a societ

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 2 pts

I'm not a huge fan of the current system either. I am just explaining why the war vote amendment would not work. If the only people that can vote are the ones young enough to serve, then the only ones that can legally be

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 6 pts

You voted for the people who appointed those people. That is indirect representation. Just because you don't understand that, does not make it any less true. You did indirectly vote for those people in the Pentagon! I d

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

I am not sure what you are arguing. What do you want? You want a popular vote for every military action, which is limited to those of able age, mental, and physical health to serve. Which then places that person into act

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

Why are you arguing that with me? I agree that the current system is fucked. I also agree that the war vote amendment was fucked. They are not mutually exclusive!

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

You are saying we should run our government and military like a barter society? Nobody gets compensated to be in the military? They just get food, water, and housing?

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

Then what would you advocate? Only those able to serve can vote, but everyone pays?

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 5 pts

Indirect doesn't stipulate only once removed. That is how our system has been since the founding of our country. There is no way everyone can vote for every single appointment in the government. There are too many people

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

I am not claiming that. I am simply claiming that you cannot have taxation without representation. Having a percentage of the population pay for something they are not allowed to vote on (directly or by representation) i

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

You are saying that not a single dollar from the federal government's general fund went to offensive or ancillary military measures relating to recent wars? Come on now...

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

Then what about the physically disabled? What about those still in the workforce that are unfit for duty, but not retired yet? What about those who are retired and paying taxes on investment income? What about retirees w

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

They are not mutually exclusive! Your straw man would only make sense if the ones dying in modern wars were drafted. They are not. They volunteered. So they had a choice about going to war or not. If we were to enact the

Comment · Tue, January 29, 2013 · 1 pts

Yes I do, and I do not agree with the draft. We either need to have no draft and no war vote, or we need to have no draft and a war vote that everyone participates in. But that would still leave us the possibility that

Comment · Wed, January 30, 2013 · 0 pts

EDIT: I misread Yes, I think that is a slippery slope. No taxation without representation, period.

Comment · Wed, January 30, 2013 · 1 pts

So what would happen to business owners? They approve of the war, but enlisting for military service would not be in the country's best interest, since running their business would probably do more for the war than they

Comment · Wed, January 30, 2013 · 1 pts

So technically the elderly vote wouldn't hold as much risk, since they know they wouldn't be sent.

Comment · Wed, January 30, 2013 · 1 pts

Haha, that would be hilarious. The elderly that voted yes would be forced to put on crappy USO performances.

Comment · Wed, January 30, 2013 · 1 pts

Our representatives *should* hold them accountable. I know that is obviously not always the case. That is how it is supposed to work, though.