With congressional lawmakers and the rest of the nation buzzing about potential military intervention in Syria, a nearly century-old failed constitutional amendment resurfaced on Reddit Tuesday, sparking debate about a dramatic restructuring of the power to declare war.
In 1916, with World War I looming for the United States, a group of Nebraska residents gathered petition signatures and sent a constitutional amendment to Congress that would have enacted a national referendum before lawmakers could declare war. On top of the national vote, anyone who cast a ballot in favor of war would have been required to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army.
While the proposal didn't make it far in Congress, the idea now pops up regularly on various social networks, earning the attention of anti-war activists and anti-interventionists who support a more concrete definition of war. There was heated discussion last month over whether President Barack Obama would seek congressional approval for military action in Syria. The president has decided to, but he has also maintained that it is within his authority to approve a strike without a vote in Congress.
The 1916 constitutional amendment isn't the only historical effort to give American voters a greater say in when the nation goes to war. On several occasions between 1935 and 1940, Rep. Louis Ludlow (D-Ind.) submitted a measure calling for a national vote to confirm any declaration of war by Congress, except in cases when the United States had been attacked first. While the proposal was supported by around 75 percent of Americans at the time, according to polling, it failed in a congressional vote.
fathertime99 on May 10th, 2018 at 19:59 UTC »
The thing is there's been over 11,000 proposed changes to the Constitution since it's been around. Only 17 of these have been passed, not including the original 10. Plus if this did pass Congress it would still have a long way for it to become law, either 2/3 or 3/4 of states need to pass it as well (don't remember the number off the top of my head). The way the Constitution is set up is so that there can be no radical changes to our country. I don't believe that if this did pass it would have meet the other requirements as well.
broscientologist on May 10th, 2018 at 19:41 UTC »
Tis merely a skirmish. No vote needed.
TooShiftyForYou on May 10th, 2018 at 18:58 UTC »
This became known as the Ludlow Amendment after Representative Louis Ludlow (D-Indiana) introduced the amendment several times around WWII, the proposal did not apply if the US was attacked first. Congressman Ludlow stated:
The amendment would do more to keep American boys out of slaughter pens in foreign countries than any other measure that could be passed. It is based on the philosophy that those who have to suffer and, if need be, to die and to bear the awful burdens and griefs of war shall have something to say as to whether war shall be declared.
If the United States had such an anti-war provision in its Constitution, other countries would follow our example, and I believe wars would be brought to an end.
Source