Ludlow Amendment [PASS'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sponsor: Libertas
bill slot: 1

[Bacon King]

I'm generally supportive of a devolution of power in Atlasia, allowing the people a say as often as possible, but this seems a bit drastic. War is something that should be decided quickly if needed, not in a drawn-out national vote.

At most this would only make the Executive stronger vis-a-vis the legislature without affecting anything else, since the Senate's inability to declare war would just make undeclared "military actions" more common.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm generally supportive of a devolution of power in Atlasia, allowing the people a say as often as possible, but this seems a bit drastic. War is something that should be decided quickly if needed, not in a drawn-out national vote.

At most this would only make the Executive stronger vis-a-vis the legislature without affecting anything else, since the Senate's inability to declare war would just make undeclared "military actions" more common.

Well the amendment does specifically grant an exception in the event of invasion or attack upon Atlasia.

Unless we are fighting a true defensive war against invasion, I think something as serious as war should be decided by the people themselves who will actually be paying the costs of the war. It is the people themselves, after all, who would be sacrificing their own blood, as well as the blood of brothers, sons, fathers, sisters, daughters, mothers, aunts, and uncles. Not to mention the increased taxation, the uprooting of towns, and militaristic makeover of the Atlasian economy a war would require. It would be the people who bear the burden of war, not the Senate, nor the President. They should be the ones to decide whether it is worthwhile.


As to the issue of undeclared "military actions", I think that is a problem that needs to be dealt as well. Perhaps an amendment to this amendment to expressly prohibit military actions without a constitutional declaration of war? Or save that for a separate amendment?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Naturally, I oppose this isolationist tomfoolery.  I hope all Senators will vote against it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Naturally, I oppose this isolationist tomfoolery.  I hope all Senators will vote against it.

There is nothing isolationist about this proposal. War and militarism is why the United States is isolated in the international community today, and why Nazi Germany was isolated in the 1930s.

Atlasia should strive to exist in a state of peace and harmony with all nations with war only as the very last resort. The costs of war to the people are too great to leave this decision to be made by a few rather than by the people as a whole.

[Bacon King]

I'm generally supportive of a devolution of power in Atlasia, allowing the people a say as often as possible, but this seems a bit drastic. War is something that should be decided quickly if needed, not in a drawn-out national vote.

At most this would only make the Executive stronger vis-a-vis the legislature without affecting anything else, since the Senate's inability to declare war would just make undeclared "military actions" more common.

Well the amendment does specifically grant an exception in the event of invasion or attack upon Atlasia.

Unless we are fighting a true defensive war against invasion, I think something as serious as war should be decided by the people themselves who will actually be paying the costs of the war. It is the people themselves, after all, who would be sacrificing their own blood, as well as the blood of brothers, sons, fathers, sisters, daughters, mothers, aunts, and uncles. Not to mention the increased taxation, the uprooting of towns, and militaristic makeover of the Atlasian economy a war would require. It would be the people who bear the burden of war, not the Senate, nor the President. They should be the ones to decide whether it is worthwhile.

I understand where you are coming from, but even with the exceptions listed I still find this to be too drastic. What if an ally comes under attack? If North Korea attacks South Korea, should our soldiers along the demilitarized zone be forced to stand down and do nothing until our people get around to voting on a war? In the height of the Cold War, should we have allowed the Soviet Union to make an attack against Western Europe and just backed ourselves out of NATO if the US was too hesitant for war? Worse yet, what if our hypothetical foreign enemy itself advertised in the US encouraging our people to vote against the war?

I could perhaps vote for this bill if it was amended to also exempt international alliance/treaty obligations, or direct attacks on American vessels/soldiers/embassies abroad. The world is too interconnected, sadly, to go back to the days where isolationism was a viable policy. Our allies should expect swift support from us in emergencies, just as we except help from them likewise. We are a superpower, and we can't just shirk our obligations at will.

That said, however, I do believe this mechanism could have prevented needless conflicts like the recent Iraq war (if indeed some sort of mechanism was in place that it was required for that to be a declared war).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too broad a topic for this bill, definitely. If such an amendment were also in this bill I would probably use my powers as PPT to divorce the two into separate bills as soon as I saw it.

The two issues are how undeclared military actions can be limited and how strictly they should be. I don't have any good answer for the former, though it would almost certainly need to be a constitutional amendment. For the latter, it definitely shouldn't be too strict, for the same reasons I outlined earlier in this post. Though of course with those sorts of restrictions it would already solve most of the problems that this current bill seeks to face.

This is a complicated issue, to say the least. I'm glad to see the Senate alive again!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I understand where you are coming from, but even with the exceptions listed I still find this to be too drastic. What if an ally comes under attack? If North Korea attacks South Korea, should our soldiers along the demilitarized zone be forced to stand down and do nothing until our people get around to voting on a war? In the height of the Cold War, should we have allowed the Soviet Union to make an attack against Western Europe and just backed ourselves out of NATO if the US was too hesitant for war?

If it is deemed necessary, we can still enter such conflicts. But we would not be able to rush into war rashly without giving the people the voice they deserve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Every war the U.S. has ever waged was advertised heavily by the government and the press beating the war drums with propaganda. I don't think anti-war voices overtaking the effects of pro-war propaganda is something to really be worried about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Superpower" is just a concept. Any nation is still made up of people. People just as prone to the horrors of war as those in the poorest and weakest of nations. On something that will affect all Atlasians so greatly, direct democracy is the best solution.

Forcing people into a war they don't want to fight is inherently unjust.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. Bush and the U.S. Congress disregarded the interests of the American people when they authorized the Iraq war. Let's not allow that to happen in Atlasia.

[Bacon King]

Don't forget that we Senators are elected to serve as representatives of the people. Sometimes, action needs to be taken sooner rather than later- in my Korea example, for instance, almost all Americans would support South Korea, but the time it took to ascertain that fact through polling would be enough to lose us the war before it began.

For a compromise, what if the Senate could declare war on its own without seeking public approval if a sizable supermajority voted in favor of the war? Say, 80%? That would allow situations where obvious need and support for war existed to proceed without delay, while still allowing the public a vote in more tenuous circumstances. Coupled with a future amendment limiting executive military power, this could be a viable solution to unnecessary warfare that doesn't go too far.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Don't forget that we Senators are elected to serve as representatives of the people. Sometimes, action needs to be taken sooner rather than later- in my Korea example, for instance, almost all Americans would support South Korea, but the time it took to ascertain that fact through polling would be enough to lose us the war before it began.

But there are some issues which affect the lives of individual Atlasians so greatly that I think it is only fair and just to give them a direct voice via referendum.

The idea that we should ever rush into a foreign war is dangerous in my opinion. Let there be reasonable debate before we commit Atlasian blood and treasure to any distant conflict.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it wouldn't quite be direct democracy, though it'd be much better than what we have now for sure.

[Purple State]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

[Purple State]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

That's an entirely different debate. So long as we are accepting the ability to wage war preemptively, we should not be making it more dangerous for our armed forces.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

That's an entirely different debate. So long as we are accepting the ability to wage war preemptively, we should not be making it more dangerous for our armed forces.

The Armed Forces are made up of the people of this nation. We are making it safer for them by giving them the power they need to resist an unjust war.

[Purple State]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

That's an entirely different debate. So long as we are accepting the ability to wage war preemptively, we should not be making it more dangerous for our armed forces.

The Armed Forces are made up of the people of this nation. We are making it safer for them by giving them the power they need to resist an unjust war.

They elect public officials to express their will.

If you believe that certain types of war are unjust, I urge you to propose an amendment that more accurately expresses your actual intent (i.e. limits the war powers). Adding a dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military, however, is not the way to go about this.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

That's an entirely different debate. So long as we are accepting the ability to wage war preemptively, we should not be making it more dangerous for our armed forces.

The Armed Forces are made up of the people of this nation. We are making it safer for them by giving them the power they need to resist an unjust war.

They elect public officials to express their will.

If you believe that certain types of war are unjust, I urge you to propose an amendment that more accurately expresses your actual intent (i.e. limits the war powers). Adding a dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military, however, is not the way to go about this.

What a delightful conflict of interests, the incoming executive seeking to deprive the people of the right to decide whether they will be forced into an unjust war where they will be killed or maimed. It is the right of the people decide whether a war is just or not. They are the ones who will have to fight the war, in many more ways than one.



As Senator La Follette wrote prophetically when the United States made the mistake of failing to empower the people on this issue:

"The weakness of American democracy today lies in the almost unrestricted power of any executive to create a war situation which Congress must accept, and the power of Congress to make one decision (declaring war) which will transform the whole Nation into an armed camp and in effect suspend the whole Bill of Rights...This (Ludlow) amendment will act as a great bulwark to preserve liberty in the struggle of the nation to maintain its democratic form of government...At present Congress can, by declaration of war, without further check by the people, set up a virtual military dictatorship, send millions of men to death in foreign lands, open the sluice-gates to billions of war loans to other nations and burden down the nation with more than double the present national debt."


Let us not make the same mistakes here in Atlasia. LET THE PEOPLE RULE!

[Purple State]

It takes long enough for the Senate to debate matters of national security. How much advance warning should an enemy actor have that we are preparing to go to war with them?

We should not be fighting- or rather, consigning the people to fight- wars of aggression in the first place.

That's an entirely different debate. So long as we are accepting the ability to wage war preemptively, we should not be making it more dangerous for our armed forces.

The Armed Forces are made up of the people of this nation. We are making it safer for them by giving them the power they need to resist an unjust war.

They elect public officials to express their will.

If you believe that certain types of war are unjust, I urge you to propose an amendment that more accurately expresses your actual intent (i.e. limits the war powers). Adding a dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military, however, is not the way to go about this.

What a delightful conflict of interests, the incoming executive seeking to deprive the people of the right to decide whether they will be forced into an unjust war where they will be killed or maimed. It is the right of the people decide whether a war is just or not. They are the ones who will have to fight the war, in many more ways than one.



As Senator La Follette wrote prophetically when the United States made the mistake of failing to empower the people on this issue:

"The weakness of American democracy today lies in the almost unrestricted power of any executive to create a war situation which Congress must accept, and the power of Congress to make one decision (declaring war) which will transform the whole Nation into an armed camp and in effect suspend the whole Bill of Rights...This (Ludlow) amendment will act as a great bulwark to preserve liberty in the struggle of the nation to maintain its democratic form of government...At present Congress can, by declaration of war, without further check by the people, set up a virtual military dictatorship, send millions of men to death in foreign lands, open the sluice-gates to billions of war loans to other nations and burden down the nation with more than double the present national debt."


Let us not make the same mistakes here in Atlasia. LET THE PEOPLE RULE!

How is it a conflict of interest? The executive doesn't have the power to declare war.

And in response to your passionate plea, I direct all senators and citizens to Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Atlasian Constitution.

[President Mitt]

I strongly urge the Senate to pass this. The people, who actually have to fight the wars started by the politicians, should ultimately have the final decision to whether or not to go to war.

[Bacon King]

NCYankee, I'm moving this to slot one now that it's free.

[Purple State]

I strongly urge the Senate to pass this. The people, who actually have to fight the wars started by the politicians, should ultimately have the final decision to whether or not to go to war.

So why not give the decision to the military that fights and the military families, rather than the civilians that sit at home? And since the military is hierarchical, your argument would naturally extend to putting the sole power of declaring war in the hands of the President.

This is obviously ridiculous.

[Badger]

In RL this proposal would be infeasible, but in Atlasia it just might work.

The major concern seems to be its application to situations short of national invasion or attack that still requires immediate response. BK listed good examples such a North Korean attack across the DMZ or an invasion of a NATO ally.

How about a compromise similar to the War Powers Resolution? It provided that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Replace the Presdent's authority with the Senate's declaration of war, and replace the congressional authorization with national referendum and you get the idea. I'm not sure 90 days is necessary as things as things obviously move much quicker in Atlasia than in RL, but that can be sorted out too. Such amendment essentially would allow the Senate to authorize military action as before, but such authorization cannot extend beyond 'X' days without approval in a national referendum.

Thoughts, Senators? Would you accept something like that as friendly, Libertas (subject to approval of the exact language of course)?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In RL this proposal would be infeasible, but in Atlasia it just might work.

The major concern seems to be its application to situations short of national invasion or attack that still requires immediate response. BK listed good examples such a North Korean attack across the DMZ or an invasion of a NATO ally.

How about a compromise similar to the War Powers Resolution? It provided that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Replace the Presdent's authority with the Senate's declaration of war, and replace the congressional authorization with national referendum and you get the idea. I'm not sure 90 days is necessary as things as things obviously move much quicker in Atlasia than in RL, but that can be sorted out too. Such amendment essentially would allow the Senate to authorize military action as before, but such authorization cannot extend beyond 'X' days without approval in a national referendum.

Thoughts, Senators? Would you accept something like that as friendly, Libertas (subject to approval of the exact language of course)?

That could work. Of course it's easier to just keep the troops out of conflicts in the first place rather than have to deal with extricating them.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I strongly urge the Senate to pass this. The people, who actually have to fight the wars started by the politicians, should ultimately have the final decision to whether or not to go to war.

So why not give the decision to the military that fights and the military families, rather than the civilians that sit at home? And since the military is hierarchical, your argument would naturally extend to putting the sole power of declaring war in the hands of the President.

This is obviously ridiculous.

The people at home bear costs too. And those who would enlist in the military upon the start of a war come from the people. All of them should decide.

The power of declaring war belongs rightfully to the people, not to the Senate, and definitely not to the President.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NCYankee, I'm moving this to slot one now that it's free.

Damn, I was going to that yesterday but thought it best to wait for your say so.

Oh, are to become a direct democracy now? Such a foolish endevour indeed to restrict the powers of the nations war machine in such away. If Senators are incapable of deciding whether go to war or not, then are they not impotent, if they are impotent and irrelevant, should they not just be abolished? I oppose this measure fully, we have elections and a representative democracy for a reason. The people entrust their elected officials to make tough decisions for them and if they disagree can vote them out at the next election.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

NCYankee, I'm moving this to slot one now that it's free.

Damn, I was going to that yesterday but thought it best to wait for your say so.

Oh, are to become a direct democracy now? Such a foolish endevour indeed to restrict the powers of the nations war machine in such away. If Senators are incapable of deciding whether go to war or not, then are they not impotent, if they are impotent and irrelevant, should they not just be abolished? I oppose this measure fully, we have elections and a representative democracy for a reason. The people entrust their elected officials to make tough decisions for them and if they disagree can vote them out at the next election.

War affects the people of Atlasia in a way that day-to-day government policy does not.

It is right to provide the people with the safeguard of direct democracy on such a serious matter that would impact their lives so severely.

[Franzl]

Apart from the general problem that it might harm our ability to defend ourselves properly...although admittedly, that is quite seldom that a decision needs to made that quickly.....why just give the people the right to vote on war? If we start this, eventually we're going to have people suggesting referenda for everything government wants to do.

Representative democracy is our system of government, and for good reason. I think the average citizen is even less qualified to make these decisions than the average senator....even if that makes me sound anti-democratic and elitist. The purpose of voting for one's representatives, however, is precisely to put someone in power that we the people trust with important decisions, such as, but not limited to, going to war.

I'm quite uncomfortable with putting such important decisions up to a popular vote, to be honest.

(Not that my opinion is relevant for the next couple of days....)