Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mike Gravel vs. the Constitution

Posted by Guest Blogger at 8:03 AM on June 19, 2007.


Rick Perlstein: Mike Gravel ruffles more than a few feathers at the Take Back America Conference.
gravel041706146

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Rick Perlstein, originally appeared on the Campaign for America's Future

Senator Gravel's introducer, Raph Nader, was introduced to scattered boos, and spoke for 18 of Gravel's allotted 30 minutes. Then Gravel spoke for about six minutes.

First things first. Gravel is a man to whom all patriots owe a debt. People know he is somehow associated with the publication of the Pentagon Papers - the Defense Department historical study, thousands of pages of documents and analysis, that demonstrated that American presidents had been lying about Vietnam since shortly after World War II.

Daniel Ellsberg was the defense intellectual who leaked the study to newspapers. But it was Gravel who turned it into a public document, one everyone can read. As the Nixon adminstration was busy trying to enjoin their publication in court, Gravel, the 41-year-old senator from Alaska, had called an extraordinary two-man night "hearing" of his Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. He began reading aloud from the four thousand page typescript. He started at 9:45 PM. "The story is a terrible one," Gravel warned. "It is replete with duplicity, connivance against the public. People, human beings, are being killed as I speak to you. Arms are being severed; metal is crashing through human bodies." Then, he began to weep. Word of mouth spread; aides and reporters working late started filtering into the hearing room. He read for three hours and then recessed, noting to reporters he might be risking expulsion from the Senate. He stopped at 1:12 AM, promising to continue the next day. By then, he had broken out in sobs once more.

Hero then. Bad man now.

Briefly - very briefly - Gravel rushed through his plan to overturn the constitutional system. "You say 'take back the power'? The people never had it. The constitution is not a very democratic document.... Our checks and balances are voided whenever one party, Democratic or Republian, controls all three branches ofgovernment.... we can only participate every two years." You can read about Gravel's plan to change all that here.

He laid out, too, his plan one Iraq: "We can have all Americans home by Christmas. Doesn't that sound great?"

In theory. But not the way Gravel wants to do it. He laid out a legislative strategy of passing a war-ending bill, calling up Senate cloture votes ever single day "until you override the opposition." Once you get cloture, you get a veto - and then, "You have an override vote on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday - no weekends off."

Fine. There's a great argument to be made for the strategy. But here's something else he proposed: introducing legislation to make the President and Vice President felons for what they have done in Iraq.

Now, Mike Gravel disdains the Constitution. That's fine. A lot of great Americans - including the abolitionists - disdained the Constitution (they pointed out that it was a document that, then, countenanced slavery). And, like many of us, he despises Dick Cheney and George Bush. But here's what I just learned fifteen minutes ago:

Mike Gravel seems to have no idea what's in the Constitution.

I chased Gravel down as he was leaving, shoulder to shoulder with Ralph Nader. It gave me no pleasure to ask him, "Senator, isn't what you just described a 'bill of attainder'?"

I wasn't quite sure I quite got his attention (or perhaps, horrifyingly, he wasn't familiar with the phrase), so I elaborated. "Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution specifies that you can't pass a law to punish things that weren't against the law when the newly invented 'crime' was committed."

(I didn't add that this was the wisest stopgap to tyranny the framers of the Constitution devised - imagine, just imagine, if George W. Bush could suddenly have directed Trent Lott and Tom Delay to invent some ex post facto crime with which to incarcerate some inconvenient political enemy?)

Here's the exchange that ensued:

"Are you a Constitutional expert?"

"No, I'm a journalist."

"Well, Congress can do any goddmaned thing that it wants."

Digg!

Tagged as: constitution, take back america, gravel

Rick Perlstein is the author of Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, winner of the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for history.


Hallmark Gets Down with Same-Sex Marriage
Now same-sex couples can receive incredibly earnest cards at their weddings too.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 21, 2008.
McCain Office Is Sent White Powder, Threat
CBS: McCain's campaign office in Denver, CO has received a letter containing a threat and "an amount of white powder in it"
Post by AlterNet Staff. August 21, 2008.
Iran: NBA Succeeds Where Bush Administration Failed
You can assume that NBA teams won't be calling in Condoleezza Rice to help with negotiations.
Post by Faiz Shakir. August 21, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bill of Attainder
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 19, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't make retroactive law, but you can make their present actions criminal AS OF NOW (that's what all new criminal law does.) Perhaps this is what Gravel meant.

This, too, would have to get past the veto. Merely passing it would certainly serve notice, though, but it is not a possibility with the present Democratic Party.

Their refusal to even consider impeachment, without which they can accomplish nothing that matters, or to take any effective action to stop the war, reveals their real agenda. The truth is that they support the war. They certainly want to keep it going, and Bush in office, until the next election. They think that will give them a free ride next year. I agree - but the polls say otherwise: their poll ratings are right down there with Bush's.

As they should be, given their remarkable non-performance. All this is why Bloomberg is suddenly acting like a Presidential candidate and Greens and Libertarians are frantically organizing. It's going to be a wide-open race, with the voters deeply disgusted with both major parties.

Sounds like fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ex post facto law, not a bill of attainder
Posted by: Rune on Jun 19, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It gave me no pleasure to ask him, "Senator, isn't what you just described a 'bill of attainder'?"

. . .

"Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution specifies that you can't pass a law to punish things that weren't against the law when the newly invented 'crime' was committed."


That is the correct clause of the Constitution, but not the correct phrase to describe the prohibition the would-be creator of a tempest in a teapot is alluding to. A new law passed to punish those who committed newly proscribed actions before passage of the law that made those actions illegal is an "ex post facto law," not a bill of attainder. The key concept behind a bill of attainder is that people being punished are singled out without trial because of who they are not because of what they have done, even if the test for who they are--such as a loyalty oath--is applied after passage of the law.

Nothing about using brute force parliamentary procedures to pass a law that calls for conditions that would require the withdrawal of troops from a war that Congress has yet to declare--in accordance with the Constitution--has anything at all to do with either an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder. All this article proves is that the author, the award winning Rick Perlstein, is capable of making a fool of himself at times.

Perhaps Gravel really does know the Constitution quite well, both as a compendium of legal doctrine and as a matter of practical effect within the halls of Congress and, noting the obvious flaw in the implied assertion of a pesky journalist trying to stir up trouble where there was none, he chose to blow him off with an outrageous statement that might cause said journalist to expose his own absurdity to others. Seems to have worked, in any case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of Hillary's Minions?
Posted by: RWMann on Jun 19, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The National Initiative (whereby the public would vote on basic policy questions like war and peace, as the Swiss do) would restore the the Congress to its proper role of serving the Public and carrying out the Public's wishes and the President to his proper role as national office manager. There is nothing "unConstitutional" about it.

While Mike wants citizens to vote on war and peace, taxation, etc., Hillary wants us to vote on her campaign theme song.


Vive Les Hommes du Poids!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a Ridiculous Article!
Posted by: rjgwood on Jun 19, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To argue that he is a "bad man" now because he wants Bush/Cheney tried for crimes is absurd. I don't think it has been concluded that they haven't broken any laws, and the democrats have taken "impeachment off the table."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Nuremberg Principles
Posted by: LouisFallert on Jun 20, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I doubt that the US will ever hold any of the administration responsible, anyone reading the Nuremberg Principles should recognize that a primae facie case against them exists. Since under Article VI of the US Constitution these principles are United States law, our officials should be subject to them.

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a. Crimes against peace:

i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

b. War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c. Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is Alternet giving three mainstream Democratic candidates good coverage and Gravel crap?
Posted by: johngary66 on Jun 20, 2007 11:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been having doubts about Alternet for a while. Todays posts don't help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

READ the Bill
Posted by: samtresler on Jun 24, 2007 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gravel is NOT proposing that we make Cheney and Bush outlaws vis-a-vis a law. He IS proposing a law that would make the prosecution of the war in Iraq illegal, which, if passed AND Bush and Cheney continiued to prosecute the war after the fact they would be indeed breaking a federal law - thusly felons.

I'm sure when you bombarded him for a 10 second sound bite you might not have gotten the whole picture.

You see, in our Congress, we used to use a Declaration of War - but the last one the Military Industrial Complex has deemed fit to let us have was Dec. 8th 1941. In those days, if Congress thought a War was bad mojo for the American people they were allowed to rescind the Declaration.

No longer. Congress has given up one of the Checks that was built into the Constitution. Now the only power Congress has to stop this war is to stop funding it. Thats criminal. Too many of our soldiers have sacrificed themselves on the faith that we were doing the right thing to hurt them by a lack of funding.

Gravel, being the person who ended VietNam single-handedly, with a five month filibuster that ended the draft, is proposing a law that would allow Democrats with a conscious to end the war in Iraq - without putting our troops in the middle of a political battle. Oh, and restoring a check that Congress had but gave up to balance the Executive Branch.

That right - this restores a Constitutional Power it doesn't fly in the face of it. Read your history and you'll know this is actually the only way to end the war without hurting the troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]