The Ludlow Amendment was a amendment to the constitution that required a national referendum in order to go to war unless the US was attacked first.

The text says

SEC. 1. Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its Territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the States, the question to be voted on being, Shall the United States declare war on ________? Congress may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

SEC. 2. Whenever war is declared the President shall immediately conscript and take for use by the Government all the public and private war properties, yards, factories, and supplies, together with employees necessary for their operation, fixing the compensation for private properties temporarily employed for the war period at a rate not in excess of 4 percent based on tax values assessed in the year preceding the war.


The US would not need a referendum to go to war with Japan they attacked them. I am not sure on Germany since the the amendment does not clarify what happens when a nation declares war. This would either go to the supreme court where declaring war is voted as being essentially being attacked or the amendment adds that in and so the real text is slightly different to above. If it was the first then this may cause other supreme court later which effect the nature of war. Anyway the amendment would not change WW2 [except if WW2 was moved back a few years it may make the amendment more likely to pass for example Britain and France not declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland]. The Korean War was popular and so no change there. Involvement in Vietnam in the fifties was popular. However as the war escalates this may raise another issue about the amendment. What happens when a war get unpopular. This may result in the answer that if a war gets unpopular the war should be stopped. And so after a referendum the US leaves Vietnam in the early sixties leaving a earlier win for North Vietnam. The invasion of Grenada is also voted against and so the invasion of Panama is proposed and neither is the Gulf War and the Kosovo War. The Afghanistan war and Iraq may initially be allowed yet after some years a referendum may force the US to withdraw. The war on terror may be more of a case of keeping terrorists out rather than fighting wars to destroying it in the first place. What would the result be then? What do you think would happen if the amendment was a success?
 
I'm not sure it would have much effect. The US- and for that matter, almost all of the Great Powers- has avoided formal declarations of war since the 1940s anyway.

Leaving aside the difficulty in getting the Ludlow amendment passed in the first place, I'd expect both the executive branch and congress to do whatever they can to minimise the check on their powers.
They might well make more of an effort to avoid the word 'war', so that you'd see an even greater emphasis on 'military interventions,' 'police actions,' 'peacekeeping' and 'military advisors,' but the amendment wouldn't on the face of it prevent a single ajor military engagement the US has had since 1945.
 
I'm not sure it would have much effect. The US- and for that matter, almost all of the Great Powers- has avoided formal declarations of war since the 1940s anyway.

Leaving aside the difficulty in getting the Ludlow amendment passed in the first place, I'd expect both the executive branch and congress to do whatever they can to minimise the check on their powers.
They might well make more of an effort to avoid the word 'war', so that you'd see an even greater emphasis on 'military interventions,' 'police actions,' 'peacekeeping' and 'military advisors,' but the amendment wouldn't on the face of it prevent a single ajor military engagement the US has had since 1945.

True, unless it produces a change in the political climate such that the country as a whole is less inclined to go along with the President's "military interventions", and ordinary voters get more vociferous in demanding a say.
 

althisfan

Banned
The Ludlow Amendment was a amendment to the constitution that required a national referendum in order to go to war unless the US was attacked first.

The text says

SEC. 1. Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its Territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the States, the question to be voted on being, Shall the United States declare war on ________? Congress may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

SEC. 2. Whenever war is declared the President shall immediately conscript and take for use by the Government all the public and private war properties, yards, factories, and supplies, together with employees necessary for their operation, fixing the compensation for private properties temporarily employed for the war period at a rate not in excess of 4 percent based on tax values assessed in the year preceding the war.


The US would not need a referendum to go to war with Japan they attacked them. I am not sure on Germany since the the amendment does not clarify what happens when a nation declares war. This would either go to the supreme court where declaring war is voted as being essentially being attacked or the amendment adds that in and so the real text is slightly different to above. If it was the first then this may cause other supreme court later which effect the nature of war. Anyway the amendment would not change WW2 [except if WW2 was moved back a few years it may make the amendment more likely to pass for example Britain and France not declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland]. The Korean War was popular and so no change there. Involvement in Vietnam in the fifties was popular. However as the war escalates this may raise another issue about the amendment. What happens when a war get unpopular. This may result in the answer that if a war gets unpopular the war should be stopped. And so after a referendum the US leaves Vietnam in the early sixties leaving a earlier win for North Vietnam. The invasion of Grenada is also voted against and so the invasion of Panama is proposed and neither is the Gulf War and the Kosovo War. The Afghanistan war and Iraq may initially be allowed yet after some years a referendum may force the US to withdraw. The war on terror may be more of a case of keeping terrorists out rather than fighting wars to destroying it in the first place. What would the result be then? What do you think would happen if the amendment was a success?
While California loves to allow its citizens the ability to vote on just about everything, most US states haven't given their citizens much in the way of direct democracy at anything above the equivalent of a New England town. I don't think the US population would WANT to vote on something like this, it goes against the very beliefs of the Founding Fathers that direct democracy was bad (and still is to be honest). There is no precedent for the nation as a whole to vote by majority for ANYTHING (as recently shown the majority means nothing in a presidential election), there are no national referendums, never have been. It is just ridiculous for there to suddenly be one for something so important as war, when people in most states are only familiar with voting on referendums about bonds which they don't care to read about and often don't vote on even when they show up to vote for political offices. In conclusion- Americans are too stupid to vote on war, and they know it.
 
in the unlikely event that it works, it will be easy to whip the people into a frenzy in a country as lowkey militaristic as the usa.
 
I'm not sure it would have much effect. The US- and for that matter, almost all of the Great Powers- has avoided formal declarations of war since the 1940s anyway.

Leaving aside the difficulty in getting the Ludlow amendment passed in the first place, I'd expect both the executive branch and congress to do whatever they can to minimise the check on their powers.
They might well make more of an effort to avoid the word 'war', so that you'd see an even greater emphasis on 'military interventions,' 'police actions,' 'peacekeeping' and 'military advisors,' but the amendment wouldn't on the face of it prevent a single ajor military engagement the US has had since 1945.



Also, those in power have long demonstrated both a willingness and ability to influence to populace to support any war that they wanted
 
True, unless it produces a change in the political climate such that the country as a whole is less inclined to go along with the President's "military interventions", and ordinary voters get more vociferous in demanding a say.
especially when the voters feel they are being snookered and/or disrespected.

Yes, I think “change of climate” does lend itself to some possibilities.
 
Top