I'm taking a blogging break, this is the gist of a truthout article I am working on:
Article 1
It shall require a three fifths vote of the whole of both houses to declare war, or authorize the use of war powers. Congress may revoke a declaration of war, or of any specific war power, by three fifths vote of the whole of both houses, to take effect not less than 30 days from the date of the vote.
Article 2
The authorization for the use of war powers shall expire thirty days from the beginning of a new Congress, unless reauthorized by a majority of the whole of both houses.
Article 3
Should the President use force or fraud directed at the Congress for the purpose of attaining a declaration of war or war powers, he shall be removed following a vote of a three fifths of the Senate, if impeached by the House. The President may appeal this removal to the Supreme Court.
This amendment address three gaps which have been created in the seams of the constitution.
First is the granting of war powers has dramatically expanded the power of the executive. Thus, with greater power should there be a greater need for a mandate from the public.
Second, the passage of "blank cheque" resolutions of war. Robert Byrd argued that they are unconstitutional, and a just supreme court might well agree with him. We do not have, nor are we likely to have a just supreme court in the near future. The Amendment "sunsets" the power of war. This is an old principle of law that one legislature may not bind the hands of a later one.
Third, since there is much greater authority granted by war powers, it makes the possibility of removal by placing the barrier at a realistic number, though it prevents a "Lewinsky Lie" impeachment putting the Supreme Court in the way of a removal.
It is not an "anti-war" amendment, but the reverse, it is an attempt to restore the balance at the founding, by giving the Congress a greater lever against the executive. It would require instead the belief in an imperial president to oppose such an amendment.