Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 24, 2019, 05:08:34 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
  Amendment for Foreign Policy
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Would you agree with this amendment ?
#1Yes  
#2No  
#3Maybe  
#4Don't know  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 22

Author Topic: Amendment for Foreign Policy  (Read 709 times)
American2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 752
Côte d'Ivoire


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 24, 2019, 06:34:39 am »

Neutrality amendment
Inspiration from the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

Quote
ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Section 1: We affirm neutrality from foreign affairs.
Section 2: No foreign bases in the US territory and no overseas bases.
Section 3: No participation to military alliances.
Section 4:The US Armys should be Self-Defense Forces for homeland defense.

Discuss.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,242
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2019, 06:57:10 am »

Are you suggesting this for the US, like now or soon?  That would be great for arms dealers outside of the US, very very few other people would benefit as the third world would instantly descend into chaos.  If western Europe could keep the Russians from holding them at gun point ransom, they might do ok for a bit....oh the fancy weapons they can sell to all the brown people of the world, but eventually the French and the Germans are going to open old wounds, it's just what those war mongering people do.  The PRC wouldn't feel constrained at all, that's not going to go well for anybody in the area, least of all the PRC.
Logged
Karpatsky
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,334
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2019, 10:57:50 am »

Excellent amendment, assuming your goal is to undermine global peace and democracy.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,242
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2019, 06:22:04 am »

Is anyone (OP?) going to argue for the affirmative?
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2019, 08:56:38 am »

Is anyone (OP?) going to argue for the affirmative?

Considering the affirmative is a stupid ass side to argue for, no.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,768


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2019, 10:22:10 am »

Is anyone (OP?) going to argue for the affirmative?

Considering the affirmative is a stupid ass side to argue for, no.
Logged
KaiserDave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,035
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.98, S: -3.33

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2019, 03:13:47 pm »

Excellent amendment, assuming your goal is to undermine global peace and democracy.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,262
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2019, 12:53:38 am »

Id like to tell myself you are a competent agent of Beijing, but sadly you dont even seem clever enough to play a bumbling KGB agent in the Cold War movies.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,538
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2019, 08:33:18 am »

Technically the Constitution prohibits military appropriations exceeding 2 years on the grounds that our military should never be "permanent". In practice they've never really been defunded but that is an option.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,021
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2019, 06:53:49 pm »

Technically the Constitution prohibits military appropriations exceeding 2 years on the grounds that our military should never be "permanent". In practice they've never really been defunded but that is an option.

The limit is on army appropriations; navy appropriations can be for as long as Congress is willing. The reasoning is that a navy can't be used internally. Similar reasoning is part of why the UK has a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force but not a Royal Army.
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,852
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2019, 07:32:51 pm »

Technically the Constitution prohibits military appropriations exceeding 2 years on the grounds that our military should never be "permanent". In practice they've never really been defunded but that is an option.

The limit is on army appropriations; navy appropriations can be for as long as Congress is willing. The reasoning is that a navy can't be used internally. Similar reasoning is part of why the UK has a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force but not a Royal Army.

This assumption will look foolish when the Emperor begins shelling Chicago.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC