This would end most, if not all, wars.

Very interesting, thanks for posting

I thought that was pretty stupid and contrary to their best interests.

It was a law outlawing a substance that is - very consistently - the most harmful to human health and social fabric. It was actually a damn good idea from the viewpoint of a national interest. However, it was very naive - the idea of a black market appearing doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of anyone. The crime to support that market and the measures to enforce the law ended up causing almost as many problems as legal alcohol did - and at greater cost to taxpayers.

The problem is in the "total ban" aspect of it. Had some sort of market been preserved - even if only a government-run dispensary - the black market would have been undercut and the measure would have been more successful.

I don't know if we can equate naïve with stupid, but it seems pretty close.

This was said in sarcasm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022904937#post3
But the resultant discussion has merit. I can't claim to know either way, but do want to differentiate between stupid and naive, the difference is awareness, the naive person never had the ability to make an informed decision, the stupid person had the information and made a bad decision.

Naive or naïve
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, betand losesubstantial sums of money on sporting events" (Tim Layden).
2. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: "this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast" (H.L. Mencken).
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.

Stupid
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

I see the distinction.

But I would like to think that our congress people and state legislators were not naïve about such matters as our liberty and society. But then again, I wish for a lot of things that probably are not realistic. So maybe I am naïve?

They believe they will be among the selected elite when the proles are made to obey or die.

Wishful or hopeful are words that depend upon things outside of carefully laid plans.

That's a good thing... Right?

Actually, nine of ten people consume alcohol with no harm to society at all. The one of ten who cannot control themselves do a great deal of harmn, admittedly, but the principle of allowing the actions of the minority to dictate for the majority is the opposite of democracy.

Perhaps simply due to sheer volume being consumed, but still.

Fewer than 30% of all motor vehicle deaths are caused by alcohol.

Driving at illegal speeds on the freeway causes more harm than alcohol does, so perhaps we should ban automobiles.

Yes, alcohol abuse is a major problem, and I have the greatest admiration for organizations such as MADD, but hyperbole and demonization simply serves no useful purpose.

We've created a horrific black market simply by making drugs illegal. They call them "controlled substances" but control is the last thing we have over them.

And it obliterated the German culture in communities from Pennsylvania to the Midwest.

I hope those who supported prohibition burn in hell.

I agree with the voting record,but enabling is another story.

The sarcasm is strong with you. Well done.

That one would sure come in handy now.

.... but that's just me.

or a typo on the webpage

But, how is "pollution" defined? Some consider excessive noise and odor from farms pollution. And, I'm sure people could get creative with coming up with others.

Ban conscription, and keep the army volunteer-only.

And a lot of people would have voted to go to war, so you would probably still be here had it been the case. Anyone who didn't vote for war after Pearl Harbor would have been looked at as a un-American.

Although he liked to dress up in the uniforms.

Actually I exaggerate slightly - to be more precise, I live in the UK, and I think it probable that even if the US had stayed out of the war Operation Sealion would not have succeeded. But I hope the point is clear?

you father now would have met someone and so would the woman who is now your mother. you would still would have been born you just have no way of knowinf where you'd be right now anyway that's knda what i meant

I'd host a war, but no one would show up. I've long since stopped trying to have parties, because no one ever showed up.
It was quite strange, but if only our Department of Peace would contact me, really, all wars would come to a screeching halt.

If you were close I would come say hi, if invited

On edit: with the wife, of course. Don't want to sound creepy.

(at myself, because it's so true!)

Although, we couldn't have a cabinet made of anyone but people like us, because then even the cabinet would never meet

That old line: What if they gave a war and nobody came??

For peace, of course!

Most of the people who would be for wars would be military contractors, NRA types, and fake patriots like Ted Nugent. And under this amendment they'd have to serve.

I'm not aware of there ever having been a National vote on anything. All elections I am aware of are run by states or local governments. Even our vote for President is actually a state vote for a slate of Electors.

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it seems some new mechanism would be needed.

Don't they run national elections?

Doesn't look like it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission

rather there are 50 individual state elections.

1894: acknowledging that the Constitution recognizes God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs.

Might get passed today!

time to limit personal net income to $1 million. Anyone who can't make do with that can fuck off. And yes, one can only hope that the "job creators" will lose the incentive to bless us with manna from their corporatist heaven.

to whatever that amount would be in today's dollars. I think it would go a long way in correcting the extreme income/wealth inequality we have now.

in today's dollars. What say we compromise and go for $10 million?

Why would this end any wars?

He was installed by the Supreme Court the first time, with suspicious voting and vote totals both times.

Really, really bad idea.

Al Gore won 500,000+ popular votes more than bu$h. *We* most definitely did NOT vote in George bu$h.

It does make me nervous to put it to a vote among a general public that is not well informed and easily mislead.

With respect to the 1916 proposal - that is probably not workable in the current situation where we have "undeclared" wars with conflicts that are not between nation states but between one or more nation states and various non-state actors. But what I would suggest is that immediately upon a vote in favor of such "wars", all members of Congress voting in the affirmative are immediately placed on active duty, regardless of age or sex. Immediately, the family members of all such members of Congress (unfortunately this would not pass constitutional muster) would be enlisted in the military (not as officers).

The 1876 proposal is patently unconstitutional. While you cannot make religious belief or affiliation a requirement for public service, you cannot prohibit someone in such service from public office. The rub here is that these individuals' behavior while public service is often too tightly governed or directed by their religious beliefs.

The 1933 proposal was clearly an attempt to stick it in the eye of those who had, despite the Great Depression, managed to amass or maintain relatively huge fortunes. I am not opposed to people making lots of money. I am opposed to them doing so by avoiding reasonable, legitimate taxes, treating their employees (on-shore and offshore) as chattel and treating the environment as if it was there as their toilet.

So the 1876 proposal would be constitutional. Because it would be part of the Constitution.

Therein lies the rub: in our closed system of limited resources, people can amass wealth *only* to the detriment of others.

One of the big disappointments in my lifetime.

I always thought the best way to keep the peace would be for a person to be required to get his/her mother's permission before going to war.

Welcome here hog. Have fun!

but he went anyway. He served on the USS Wisconsin during the Bush/Iraq War I, and, I'm proud of him, but, if we had a do over, I still wouldn't give my permission.
Welcome to DU.

now. On the third one I'd be generous & adjust to inflation. If anyone initiates it I'll support it! There have been many smart community oriented people in our past and I know there continue to be now. Thanks for sharing this amazing fact.

I didn't think of that. I guess I was assuming a specific vote on the war, seperate from regular elections.

Wars can be declared, but the only people allowed to fight in them are politicians and generals. We put them in an arena with clubs, sell tickets and popcorn.

"In 1916, a proposed amendment to the Constitution read that all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes would have to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army."

Direct democracy has never been known to work, which is why the founders created a representative democracy. California's version of direct democracy resulted in 80% of "propositions" calling for government spending being passed, while 70% of those calling for taxation failed, and drove California into the brink of bankruptcy for years. That is beginning to reverse itself under Brown, but could be temporary.

Not to mention that with a secret ballot, how do you enforce the part that requires volunteering for military service if one votes in favor of war?

"1876: the forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding "

The constitution forbids any religious test for any office in this nation. There was at one point a law banning federal funding for religious organizations, but George Bush voided that with his "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," or something like that and Obama continued the process after he was elected.

"1933: an attempt to limit the personal wealth to $1 million "

Limiting personal wealth? You have to be kidding. Aside from the utter impossibility of enforcement, Karl Marx would be giddy withy delight.

The war by national vote seems to me like one of those ideas that when you first hear about it it sounds good, but then when you think about it it does not sound as good. I realize that if you oppose war, having a situation where it takes a long time to start a war is a good thing. However, having a national vote in order to go to war has its own problems. If there was ever a Pearl Harbor type attack a national election would have to be called. Then the nation would have to pay to have the election. Beyond the cost of the election would be the time it would take in order to schedule an election. Instead of taking days for either Congress to declare war, or for the President to deploy troops we would have to wait at least weeks in order to organize and hold an election. In addition, what would you do with the people who did not vote? Send them to war just to punish them for not voting?

Another problem is personnel. It seems the military has been having enough trouble with people who willingly signed up for the military and then upon being sent to war decided they do not like the military. What would you do with the people who voted for the war, but do not want to fight the war? Yes, you can force those people to join the military, but you cannot force them to do their job, or do their job well. So, you could end up in a situation in which a number of people who are forced to join the military perform poorly in order to be kicked out of the military. At that point the military is faced with a major decision; keep poorly performing people in the military and let them cause problems for the military because they(military leadership) do not want to let those people off the hook, or cut their loses and kick the poor performing people out. So, at least in theory someone could vote for war and still not go to war by performing poorly.

Thanks for the reply.

plato