Gravel questions constitutional law

June 19, 2007

I appreciate the fact that some people find former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) charming. He has a no-nonsense way about him, he’s really opposed to the war in Iraq, he’s beholden to no one, and every audience knows that Gravel is going to say exactly what he believes, whether it’s politic or not.

But it’s probably worth remembering from time to time that the former senator is also, shall we say, a little bit “out there.” For example, Rick Perlstein heard Gravel this morning at the Take Back America Conference (Gravel chose Ralph Nader to introduce him, which wasn’t a popular choice). He explained his approach to ending the war.

“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.

That may sound nice, but Congress can’t pass a bill making actions in 2003 illegal in 2007. So Perlstein tracked Gravel down after the speech and asked him, “Senator, isn’t what you just described a ‘bill of attainder‘?”

After Perlstein explained what that meant, Gravel asked, “Are you a Constitutional expert?” Perlstein responded, “No, I’m a journalist.” Gravel concluded, “Well, Congress can do any goddamned thing that it wants.”

I’m officially neutral when it comes to the Democratic primary, but I don’t think I’ll be voting for Sen. Gravel.

The Bush administration has just proved that the Constitution is a piece of paper. No one is willing to defend it in the face of a rapacious and incompetent administration.

Think about the implications of that for a bit.

Come back to the table when you understand that when the Constitution is practically off the table, a lot of folks can do whatever they want.

  • Congress can do anything it wants or the President can do anything he wants. Thankfully this isn’t 2004 and this isn’t the choice before me, but if I had to decide between the two I’d have to go with Gravel.

    Also, nonesuch makes a good point too.

    At least Gravel wants justice from the criminals in the White House. How many other Dem candidates demand that (Constitutionally or otherwise?)

  • “questions constitutional law” is a very polite phrase. what he did was say: “screw the constitution, screw the law, we can do whatever we want.” he’s got a lot more of bush in him than he could probably live with if he realized it.

  • “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    On the other hand, the Constitution is quite clear that if these people are committing high crimes and misdemeanors – which they certainly are – every single one of them can be impeached. No reason to go over the top when you have an obvious and legal remedy right in front of you.

  • He’s technically correct – Congress can pass whatever law it wants to. Good luck getting the courts to enforce it, however, because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

  • I’m pretty sure “aggressive war” was a war crime under international law in 2003.

    So, in the unlikely event, that the Democratic President, who takes office on January 20, 2009 has unusual gumtion, Bush and Cheney et alia could be shipped off to The Hague.

    I won’t be holding my breath till then, though.

  • Again, is “D-Alaska” really relevant when the man has hardly set foot in the 49th State since leaving office 26 years ago? He lives in Virginia.

  • Gravel’s bill, if passed which is unlikely, requires 120 days after the bill is passed before felony charges would be pressed. Therefore a bill of attainder situation and unconstitutional issues would not occur. What I think he was saying is Congress, journalists, and ordinary people should be doing something now instead of mincing the legality of the situation.

  • I heard Gravel speak in New Hampshire about 10 days ago. My understanding was that he wanted to make it a felony for the President not to withdraw all troops by a certain date. I forget when, but in 2007 or 2008. No bill of attainder issues with that. Maybe he said something different at the Take Back America Conference, or maybe Perlstein (or I) misunderstood him.

    I did wonder about his idea for a national referendum. It seemed as though he wanted voters to decide constitutional questions, such as abortion. Maybe he envisioned amending the Constitution anyway to achieve the national referendum, so it would not be a Constitutional issue. I can’t say I think it’s a good idea, though.

  • This whole thing started as a non sequitor.
    Gravel wouldn’t ask Bush and Cheney to get convicted without a trial, a requirement of the offense he’s accused of.

    That said… ouch. Anything it wants??? Senator, get a little more sleep. I expect better.

    • Comments are closed.