Amendment for Foreign Policy

[American2020]

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

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.

[dead0man]

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.

[Karpatsky]

Excellent amendment, assuming your goal is to undermine global peace and democracy.

[dead0man]

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

[brucejoel99]

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

Considering the affirmative is a stupid ass side to argue for, no.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

Considering the affirmative is a stupid ass side to argue for, no.

[KaiserDave]

Excellent amendment, assuming your goal is to undermine global peace and democracy.

[Kingpoleon]

I’d like to tell myself you are a competent agent of Beijing, but sadly you don’t even seem clever enough to play a bumbling KGB agent in the Cold War movies.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Senator Incitatus]

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.