War Referendum
If the United States starts or joins a war and spends more than 120 billion dollars, there shall be a national referendum, in November five years after the first ten billion dollars was spent, on the question: Has the war had a good or bad result? If sixty percent of the votes cast in the referendum are for a bad result, the President and Vice-President are removed from office, forcing new elections for the remainder of their terms. The President is placed under house arrest for seven years.
An amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
1. If the United States, acting alone or in concert with other nations, starts or joins a war for which the United States spends more than one hundred and twenty billion dollars, there shall be a national referendum, on the first Tuesday in November five years after the first ten billion dollars was spent, on the question: Has the war had a good or bad result?
2. For 365 days before the referendum, the Supreme Court must maintain lists of the pros and cons created by each side that are nationally and freely accessible. The Congressional Budget Office must track war expenditures and announce when the thresholds in this amendment have been reached. The dollar thresholds in this amendment shall be inflation adjusted from the date of enactment of this amendment according to percentages determined by the Federal Reserve.
3. If sixty percent of the votes cast in the referendum are for a bad result, and the President and Vice-President whose administration started the war hold any elected federal offices, they are removed from those offices, forcing new elections for the remainder of their terms.
4. If sixty percent of the votes cast in the referendum are for a bad result, the President whose administration started the war must remain under house arrest and complete media isolation for the next seven years. If the former President or others under his or her direction violate the former President’s confinement and isolation, any ten Senators may petition the Supreme Court to remand the former President to serve the remainder of the sentence in a federal penitentiary.
5. If the United States, acting alone or in concert with other nations, starts or joins a war that costs allies and agents of the United States more than one hundred and twenty billion dollars, induced in part in return for favors or compensation to these allies or agents, the national referendum and its consequences created by this amendment shall occur five years after the first ten billion dollars was spent. Disputes in this accounting shall be resolved by the World Court according to its rules. If the World Court cannot resolve any dispute within ninety days, then the United States Supreme Court shall resolve that dispute within ninety days thereafter.
Should this Amendment be enacted?
FAQ’s
Q: Why is this necessary? We would be adequately protected against war mongering Presidents if Congress did its job by not authorizing unjust wars and by impeaching domestic evil doers.
A: The founding fathers did not anticipate the United States’ becoming the world’s only superpower with the ability to easily invade large nations, the importance of oil in an energy starved world, or the fear engendered by global terrorism. The Congress seems unwilling or unable to do its job, either in protecting us from launching ill conceived military adventures or in impeaching those who do.
The founding fathers also may not have anticipated that a President who launches a war a year or a year and half before the end of his or her first term may benefit from nationalistic fervor in a re-election bid, also known as the “Wag the Dog” effect. By the time a majority of citizens realize they’ve been misled, the President may be nearly at the end of a second term and the lengthy process of impeachment may not be an option. A President who launches a war in his or her second term may be out of office by the time the nation has a collective look-what-a-nice-mess-you’ve-gotten-us-into realization.
Q: But won’t the legacy of Iraq haunt us for decades to come and serve as adequate unjust war insurance?
A: That’s what everyone said about Vietnam, but here we are again. Less than thirty years after the end of that war, we launched another ill fated effort to bring American values to a part of the world that does not want them. Apparently, those who sleep through college history classes and avoid combat are doomed to repeat military history.
Q: Isn’t it risky to introduce the concept of a national referendum? There are many problems with this concept in some states.
A: On the issue of war, so critical to our future as a nation and our well-being as a people, not to mention the deaths and disabling injuries to our youth in the military and the well being of those whose countries we destroy, a President must be accountable directly to the people. Our system of Presidential elections every four years with a two term limit leaves Presidents essentially unaccountable for the long term consequences of their war actions.
Many people complain that we don’t directly elect the President, but we should. This referendum is a small step toward addressing that concern.
This amendment does not open the door to national referendums on any other subjects, only on this one very narrow issue.
Q: Why not have the referendum before starting a war?
A: Sometimes war may be the only way to protect our nation. The President may have to act quickly, before there would be time to hold a vote. He may not be able to safely share military secrets with the public when war is imminent. The average voter may not be able to see longer term issues that the President sees, which is why we elected him or her – for “the vision thing.” The five year delay gives the President time to favorably resolve the situation and citizens time to reflect.
Another risk is that a future President uncertain about whether to go to war might use a referendum as a poll and be pulled into a war because of public outrage over a hostile incident by an enemy of the U.S.
Q: Why not have a referendum to end the war?
A: It is much easier to start a war than to end one. The purpose of the amendment is to deter a President from causing the damages from an unjust war before they happen.
Q: Isn’t there a risk that most of the people who will vote in the referendum will be the naysayers, and that the supporters will not be as motivated to turn out?
A: Perhaps. That is the reason why sixty percent of the votes must be no in order to trigger to consequences of the referendum.
Q: Why wait five years?
A: It took more than four years after the Iraq War started for more than sixty percent of the American public to consistently say in polls that the war was a mistake. If it is necessary to fight a war, the President ought to get four years to complete it and a year to wrap up the loose ends before facing the music. The U.S. was in World War II for less than four years, the Korean War for three years, and World War I for two years. Even our own Civil War was over in four years. Five years out is a good time frame in which to judge the success or failure of a war. A war lasting more than five years may be a quagmire?
Q: Doesn’t this amendment reduce the likelihood that the U.S. would participate in multilateral peacekeeping missions to stop genocide, such as the efforts in Bosnia or Kosovo?
A: The amendment would encourage a President to seek multination support in peacekeeping efforts in order to keep U.S. costs below the one hundred and twenty billion dollar threshold. As long as the U.S. is not buying other nations’ involvement, the expenditures of other nations in a peacekeeping mission would not trigger the referendum.
Q: Isn’t there a risk that this amendment would encourage the President to be more secretive, for fear of giving his opponents information that would encourage the naysayers?
A: It’s hard to imagine an administration more secretive than the present one. However, a President has to make a case to go to war and if the reasons turn out to be false, it is very difficult to cover them up over five years. Eventually, the fervor that starts wars dies down, and reporters start asking questions. And what is worse than a lie is to be caught in a cover up of a lie or illegal act, as time has shown over and over again for every President since Lyndon Johnson (except Carter).
Q: If Congress votes to support the war, couldn’t the Congressional Budget office cheat on the accounting?
A: Yes, but citizens could sue for a proper accounting. Citizens could also vote out enough members of Congress in the two-year election cycle to send a message that they want a proper accounting.
Q: If it is projected that expenditures will reach over one hundred and twenty billion, would that trigger the referendum?
A: No, it would not be triggered until actual expenditures had reached the threshold, and then not until five years after the first ten billion had been spent. By using dollars expended as a trigger, this formula eliminates disagreements about when a war “started.”
Q: Why the former President’s house arrest and media isolation for seven years?
A: Depriving media access to a person who craves power and a platform is harsh punishment. After the people have spoken, we need to move forward to clean up the mess without the distraction of a former leader continuing to make the case why he or she was right. House arrest, which would confine the former President to a compound, ranch or estate of his or her choosing (subject to the approved by the federal agency charged with enforcing the confinement), is kinder than prison. Seven years would ensure that the former President would not be able to directly influence a Presidential election or run for office for at least two election cycles after the referendum.
Q: Why ten Senators to bring a petition to the Supreme Court for a violation of the confinement and isolation rule?
A: Who else? Surely not the Attorney General in some future administration that just might have a connection to the fiasco. One angry Senator might bring too many petitions. It might be hard to find a number much higher than ten that did not have significant connections to the fiasco, such as that they voted in favor of launching the war.
The break-the-rules-and-go-to-jail provision is needed to ensure that the former President will not circumvent the consequences of the referendum.
Q: Why the provision including expenditures by allies or agents?
A: As we saw in Nicaragua and the Iran-Contra scandal, it was too easy for a President who was blocked by Congress to find others to do his dirty work for him. As we have seen in Iraq, outsourcing war costs and casualties to private companies such as Blackwater may be the wave of the future.
Q: But what do we care if the U.S. plays a minor role in someone else’s war?
A: It is hard to imagine two other nations being able or willing to spend one hundred and twenty billion dollars on a war without significant U.S. involvement. The only way to envision such a war without substantial U.S. is to believe, as some do, that the American empire has hit its peak and is now in decline. However, we should assume the U.S. will maintain its role as the world’s only superpower in the future, and be a high roller in any twelve digit dollar war.
Q: Why the rule about expenditures being in return for favors?
A: If a war truly is started by other nations to protect their sovereignty – independent of U.S. pressure – and we later join in to protect ours, those nations’ expenditures should not be on the table. World War Two would be an example.
Q: I want to return to the gold standard. Why rely on the Federal Reserve for anything?
A: If you have a better idea for a neutral party to determine the domestic rate of inflation, let me know.
Q: I fear globalization and anything to do with the World Court. Why rely on the World Court?
A: If you have a better idea for a neutral party to resolve disputes about how much other nations spent on a war and whether they did so in return for favors from the U.S., let me know. The U.S. Supreme Court’s coronation of George Bush as President in 2000 showed that it is not politically neutral, so that body would not be my first choice for this task, although I begrudgingly entrust to the U.S. Court two smaller tasks in this amendment.
I can’t name any terrible things the World Court has done. Can you?
A: The founding fathers did not anticipate the United States’ becoming the world’s only superpower with the ability to easily invade large nations, the importance of oil in an energy starved world, or the fear engendered by global terrorism. The Congress seems unwilling or unable to do its job, either in protecting us from launching ill conceived military adventures or in impeaching those who do.
The founding fathers also may not have anticipated that a President who launches a war a year or a year and half before the end of his or her first term may benefit from nationalistic fervor in a re-election bid, also known as the “Wag the Dog” effect. By the time a majority of citizens realize they’ve been misled, the President may be nearly at the end of a second term and the lengthy process of impeachment may not be an option. A President who launches a war in his or her second term may be out of office by the time the nation has a collective look-what-a-nice-mess-you’ve-gotten-us-into realization.
Q: But won’t the legacy of Iraq haunt us for decades to come and serve as adequate unjust war insurance?
A: That’s what everyone said about Vietnam, but here we are again. Less than thirty years after the end of that war, we launched another ill fated effort to bring American values to a part of the world that does not want them. Apparently, those who sleep through college history classes and avoid combat are doomed to repeat military history.
Q: Isn’t it risky to introduce the concept of a national referendum? There are many problems with this concept in some states.
A: On the issue of war, so critical to our future as a nation and our well-being as a people, not to mention the deaths and disabling injuries to our youth in the military and the well being of those whose countries we destroy, a President must be accountable directly to the people. Our system of Presidential elections every four years with a two term limit leaves Presidents essentially unaccountable for the long term consequences of their war actions.
Many people complain that we don’t directly elect the President, but we should. This referendum is a small step toward addressing that concern.
This amendment does not open the door to national referendums on any other subjects, only on this one very narrow issue.
Q: Why not have the referendum before starting a war?
A: Sometimes war may be the only way to protect our nation. The President may have to act quickly, before there would be time to hold a vote. He may not be able to safely share military secrets with the public when war is imminent. The average voter may not be able to see longer term issues that the President sees, which is why we elected him or her – for “the vision thing.” The five year delay gives the President time to favorably resolve the situation and citizens time to reflect.
Another risk is that a future President uncertain about whether to go to war might use a referendum as a poll and be pulled into a war because of public outrage over a hostile incident by an enemy of the U.S.
Q: Why not have a referendum to end the war?
A: It is much easier to start a war than to end one. The purpose of the amendment is to deter a President from causing the damages from an unjust war before they happen.
Q: Isn’t there a risk that most of the people who will vote in the referendum will be the naysayers, and that the supporters will not be as motivated to turn out?
A: Perhaps. That is the reason why sixty percent of the votes must be no in order to trigger to consequences of the referendum.
Q: Why wait five years?
A: It took more than four years after the Iraq War started for more than sixty percent of the American public to consistently say in polls that the war was a mistake. If it is necessary to fight a war, the President ought to get four years to complete it and a year to wrap up the loose ends before facing the music. The U.S. was in World War II for less than four years, the Korean War for three years, and World War I for two years. Even our own Civil War was over in four years. Five years out is a good time frame in which to judge the success or failure of a war. A war lasting more than five years may be a quagmire?
Q: Doesn’t this amendment reduce the likelihood that the U.S. would participate in multilateral peacekeeping missions to stop genocide, such as the efforts in Bosnia or Kosovo?
A: The amendment would encourage a President to seek multination support in peacekeeping efforts in order to keep U.S. costs below the one hundred and twenty billion dollar threshold. As long as the U.S. is not buying other nations’ involvement, the expenditures of other nations in a peacekeeping mission would not trigger the referendum.
Q: Isn’t there a risk that this amendment would encourage the President to be more secretive, for fear of giving his opponents information that would encourage the naysayers?
A: It’s hard to imagine an administration more secretive than the present one. However, a President has to make a case to go to war and if the reasons turn out to be false, it is very difficult to cover them up over five years. Eventually, the fervor that starts wars dies down, and reporters start asking questions. And what is worse than a lie is to be caught in a cover up of a lie or illegal act, as time has shown over and over again for every President since Lyndon Johnson (except Carter).
Q: If Congress votes to support the war, couldn’t the Congressional Budget office cheat on the accounting?
A: Yes, but citizens could sue for a proper accounting. Citizens could also vote out enough members of Congress in the two-year election cycle to send a message that they want a proper accounting.
Q: If it is projected that expenditures will reach over one hundred and twenty billion, would that trigger the referendum?
A: No, it would not be triggered until actual expenditures had reached the threshold, and then not until five years after the first ten billion had been spent. By using dollars expended as a trigger, this formula eliminates disagreements about when a war “started.”
Q: Why the former President’s house arrest and media isolation for seven years?
A: Depriving media access to a person who craves power and a platform is harsh punishment. After the people have spoken, we need to move forward to clean up the mess without the distraction of a former leader continuing to make the case why he or she was right. House arrest, which would confine the former President to a compound, ranch or estate of his or her choosing (subject to the approved by the federal agency charged with enforcing the confinement), is kinder than prison. Seven years would ensure that the former President would not be able to directly influence a Presidential election or run for office for at least two election cycles after the referendum.
Q: Why ten Senators to bring a petition to the Supreme Court for a violation of the confinement and isolation rule?
A: Who else? Surely not the Attorney General in some future administration that just might have a connection to the fiasco. One angry Senator might bring too many petitions. It might be hard to find a number much higher than ten that did not have significant connections to the fiasco, such as that they voted in favor of launching the war.
The break-the-rules-and-go-to-jail provision is needed to ensure that the former President will not circumvent the consequences of the referendum.
Q: Why the provision including expenditures by allies or agents?
A: As we saw in Nicaragua and the Iran-Contra scandal, it was too easy for a President who was blocked by Congress to find others to do his dirty work for him. As we have seen in Iraq, outsourcing war costs and casualties to private companies such as Blackwater may be the wave of the future.
Q: But what do we care if the U.S. plays a minor role in someone else’s war?
A: It is hard to imagine two other nations being able or willing to spend one hundred and twenty billion dollars on a war without significant U.S. involvement. The only way to envision such a war without substantial U.S. is to believe, as some do, that the American empire has hit its peak and is now in decline. However, we should assume the U.S. will maintain its role as the world’s only superpower in the future, and be a high roller in any twelve digit dollar war.
Q: Why the rule about expenditures being in return for favors?
A: If a war truly is started by other nations to protect their sovereignty – independent of U.S. pressure – and we later join in to protect ours, those nations’ expenditures should not be on the table. World War Two would be an example.
Q: I want to return to the gold standard. Why rely on the Federal Reserve for anything?
A: If you have a better idea for a neutral party to determine the domestic rate of inflation, let me know.
Q: I fear globalization and anything to do with the World Court. Why rely on the World Court?
A: If you have a better idea for a neutral party to resolve disputes about how much other nations spent on a war and whether they did so in return for favors from the U.S., let me know. The U.S. Supreme Court’s coronation of George Bush as President in 2000 showed that it is not politically neutral, so that body would not be my first choice for this task, although I begrudgingly entrust to the U.S. Court two smaller tasks in this amendment.
I can’t name any terrible things the World Court has done. Can you?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)