Shouldn't the power of making war be subtracted from all heads of state?

Question

The greediest humans and those most hungry for power always gravitate to politics. There needs to be a limit on what politicians can do with their power. Making war should be illegal. The law should be enforcible and enforced. This is not some childish wish on a star. This is possible.

How do you think we could start moving in that direction?

Answer 1

In the United States Constitution, included in the seperation of powers is the right to declare war.

This right is relegated strictly to the United States Congress and not given to the President.

Unfortunately, unless those in power wish to obey the Constitution, there is little anyone can do to stop what is going on.

The only alternative is a 2nd American Revolution with war crimes tribunals being held for those politicians who have actively committed treason against America.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, "the consent of the governed" begins and ends with a barrel of a gun. The second amendment was about the right of the people to intimidate and threaten their government with violence if it misbehaved. Now the distance between public threat and imperial retaliation is so far apart that one can reasonably say that we are allowed the delusion of democracy by those that govern us because it is a placifying illusion that happens to be less expensive than shooting us all.

Furthermore, those that wish to make war and realize that power is in the hands of those that control the military (such as a shogun). Perhaps, however, the president does too much for one person to handle. Perhaps we should have both a president and a prime minister?

Last, but not least, what is your replacement proposal? I see none. In time of invasion, response must be swift and coordinated (did you honestly think other countries would all greatfully embrace pacificism with us?). Replacing chaos with an abyss is no great improvement.

Answer 3

to fight even the smallest battle, you will have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain. there is no point of fighting for so called things as the idea of democracy, which america is trying to spread. Nor is there to fight for a religious cause (hitler, isreal, insurgents). The only reseon a person should fight should be for gain or for self-defense. If your country is hungry, and your people starving, and there is no one to help you with supplies, you can fight for some. If you are attacked, you should fight to end the war. If you start a war, it should be for a logical purpose, not for a figurehead. This includes communism, religion, democracy, and prejudice. Therefore, I believe that you're right and that all war laws should be taken away from polotics, but, under the condition that the president can initiate war with a 51% senate approval on those two measures (self-defense and gain)

Answer 4

We've all heard it. "war is hell". No SANE person or government would enter into a conflict unless it was directly threatened, or posed a deadly threat to the security of a free nation or people.

Wars will continue until each and every human being can become autonomous and have the right to their own thoughts and beliefs without fear for their life and limb.

In the meantime, sometimes you have to stand up and be counted and say " this is wrong and it has to be stopped".

RAPE
MURDER
TORTURE
GENOCIDE
IRAN IRAQ AFGANISTAN DARFUR JORDAN

HALF THE POPULATION OF THESE COUNTRIES (WOMEN) ARE ENSLAVED. DO WE IGNORE THEM?? FORGET THEM?

Instead of "Mr President" how would you like "mien Furhuer"

Answer 5

I agree with you entirely.
War is totally uncivilised

This is possible by pursuading voters to vote only for candidtaes who sign a statement that they do not and will not support war under any circumstances.

Answer 6

it should be with the consent of people only.