promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Would you vote for a constitutional Amendment.?

1. An amendment which stated if more than 30.0K U.S. troops are involved in combat a declaration of war must be passed and the draft implemented.

This would make Congress and the President think twice before sending our children to war since with a draft it would touch all of our people not just a small segment.

2. That all monies collected for Social Security must be placed in the trust fund and can not be used for many other purpose with the exception of home loans or in the time of a decaled war. And the government must repay the trust fund 100 billion dollars a year for the next 10 years.

There has been more than enough money collected by S.S. to solvent for next 200 years if our Congress had not taken the surplus and used it as part of the general budget. The trust fund holds over 2 trillion dollars in U.S. government I.O.U.s aka U.S. treasury notes. This must be replaced, at least in part.

3. A balance budget amendmend.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes yes and yes. Also I would want one that makes it illegal for straights to divorce once married. If they think marriage is so sacred as to preclude gay marriage then they should have to stick with it no matter what. You made your bed, now you lye in it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1. The role of the Unitary Executive has expanded in post WWII USA. They are not paying attention to the Consitutition as it is.

    2. The 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed and has been a complete failure since it was implemented.

    3. Congress holds the power of the purse, if they really want to they can stop this war. The problem is no one in Congress wanted to really stop it, or they would.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • C = JD
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    "This would make Congress and the President think twice before sending our children to war since with a draft it would touch all of our people not just a small segment."

    With regard to your first proposal, your concern that war only touches "a small segment" is completely false and has been debunked numerous times. The people serving in Iraq constitute a broad spectrum of race and class. It's a pure myth that only poor minorities enroll in the military. Most are middle class white men.

    Funny that the people who are MOST AGAINST want the most people involved in it. Logic 101?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well as a caveat, citizens generally don't get to vote for a constitutional amendment; it is state legislators who get to vote (although I think it is constitutionally permissible for the legislators to delegate that right to a popular vote).

    1. No, in part. 30,000 is too low; we have a large standing army, and they need to be able to be mobilized as the executive, the "commander in chief" sees fit. However, it is true that the executive makes too many decisions that truly constitute "war" without getting a declaration of war, as required in Article I of the Constitution. And C. Rangel has a good idea about having everyone feel the effects of "voluntary" military combat, but a constitutional amendment requiring a draft is not the way to solve it.

    2. There is no "trust fund," as you've articulated. And I agree that we need to keep social security funds separate and safe (and NOT invested in the market, bad idea). Of course, your idea will require HUGE tax increases that people aren't willing to fund.

    3. No. Because there are many times that the government SHOULD be in defecit spending -- to stimulate the economy, in times of national defense, etc. And Government shutdowns, layoffs, or denials of critical federal services isn't worth it to get the budget balanced. (P.S. MOST of the cuts SHOULD come from the military, as it's the largest portion of the "discretionary" budget items [excluding interest on debt and social security and medicare], but I bet you don't hear people saying that, to balance the budget, you should slash the military). What's amazing is that there are no politicians in Washington now who are really budget conscious (except for democrats, who really are just anti-tax cuts). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't demand our politicians to tell us where the money for these wars and tax cuts are going to come from --it just means their hands shouldn't be constitutionally tied.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    So are you saying that we should take our military levels down to 30K, and in the event of a war we just institute the draft? Very dangerous thinking my friend.

    Social Security should be in an account of its own and NOT touched, PERIOD, except for its intended purpose. We can thank Carter for that train wreck too.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I wouldn't vote for the ammendment, because even if the draft is reinstated, the rich and powerful have ways to get out of going into combat (People in college wouldn't get drafted and some rich families would pay to have someone take their son's place). But I'm black, so no one cares what I think anyway.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    1. No, I am against the draft.

    2. No, it should not be used for home loans either.

    3. It depends on the amendment.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Diadem
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    This sounds great! But its wishful thinking.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If you can add in there that ONLY people who pay into SS actually can draw from it. No more of this spouse who has never worked drawing on her husband SS crap.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes i would, but rep. would never allow this. their kids could be involved, and it would run into their profits. (for enough of them to stop it anyway)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.