Topic: Democracy
Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy Mike Gravel has enetered the race for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. His policies include more than opposition to the war.by rtbohan
(Libertarian)
Saturday, March 29, 2008
As a candidate for President in the Democratic Party, Mike Gravel was largely slighted in the debates and ignored by the national media. He attracted some support from libertarians because of his opposition to the war, just as Dennis Kucinich did. Now that he has left the Democratic Party and is offering himself as a Libertarian Party candidate, libertarians should look at some of the other policy positions that Senator Gravel takes. A major proposal is The Democracy Initiatiative.
I know that some libertarians, those who argue that this is a Republic and not a Democracy, will be appalled just by the name.My position is that we live in a democratic republic, and I believe, with Jefferson, that it is right that thepeople rule. That is why I am a libertarian. But even given this, I find Senator Gravel's revolutionary proposition in both its ideal form and in the mechanism which he proposes.
Senator Gravel. tthrough his Gravel Foundation, has founded two 501 corporations, The Democracy Initiative (www.nationalinitiative.us) and Philadelphia II (philidelphiatwo.org). These two corporations together are intended to create an alterate legislature for the United States and for all of the states and their local units, through referenda.
The plan is for the "Democratic Initiative to create a democracy amendment and for Phlilidelphia II to conduct a national referendum to provide for direct vote on legislation throughout the nation. This is not a method for amending the constitution provided in the constitution, but the Senator points out that the current constituion was not adopted by the methods of amendment provided for in the Articles of Confederation. He believes that if the referendum succeeds, the Supreme Court will would rule its validity to be a political question, and the President would certify it as a valid amendment. (Of course, the latter would be the case only if Senator Gravel were the President).
The amendment itself will specify that any referendum question will be vetted and certified by the Democracy Intitiative, and the referendum would be conducted and the results certified by Philidelphia II. The laws created by the referenda would supercede any contrary laws passed earlier by the Congress and could not be challenged in any court. Of course, this means one man rule of the government. For those who do not see Senator Gravel as one of Socrates' "philosopher kings", sounds like tyrany.
Amd what about the two organizations themselves? The Democracy Initiative says that "Both organizaitons are entirely nonpartisan and have neither direct nor indirect connection with any political party, labor union or religious organization. Board mebers hold...diverse political views ranging from liberal to conservative.'
This sounds good, but it is rather vague. The Democracy Foundation has six board members, Tom Lombardi, Don Kemner, Elisabeth Croteau, Lloyd Wells and Whitney Gravel. Philadelphia Ii lists the Board members as Tom Lombardi, Don Kemner, Jim Brauner, Elisabeth Croteau, Marc Lombardi and James McCrinck.
Only two of the board members have a bio on the site. Of the others, Whitney Gravel is the wife of Senator Gravel and Lloyd Wells, in his contribution to the Gravel presidential campaign, listed himself as "Secretary, Witness for Peace" (witnessforpeae.org) .
The two board members who provided bilographical information were Don Kemner and Jim Brauner. Mr. Kemner is a former Catholic priest who later was head of an insurance agency who has been active in the World Federalist Movement (www.wfm.org), and a member of the board of directors of the Institute for Peace and Justice. James Brauner is the managing partner of a telecommunications consulting firm and is also involved in the Institute for Peace and Justice (www.ipj-ppj.com) .
I can't see a great deal of diversity of opinion in this group. I anybody has information onthe other Directors of this movement they will share it. All of these people, and all of the organizations in which they are active, certainly are for peace. I am sure that their intentions for all of us are right in their view. But I think it is an ogligation of those being asked to consider Senator Gravel as an candidate for president to look not only at his opposition to the war and his slight libertarian tilt to consider the other programs he has in mind before making a decision.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, March 29, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, March 29, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: John Anderson
Date: 2008-03-30 16:08:47
The people would be subjected to the same checks and balances as any legislative body. Nowhere does it say that the people are of a supreme power, even the enactment of the NI4D is contigent on the court ruling it as a political power. If anything, the power of the government would be diffused and shared with the people, and there would be even more checks and balances to ensure the liberties of America.
It is expected that the amendment will be challenged and the belief is that the Court will rule it a political question. That depends on the make up of the court. The Supreme Court of the last fifty years has been reluctant to rule anything a political question, so unless the court is radically changed they probably will not rule that way.
The amendment, if it is certified contains the provision that no law passed by referendum for any jurisdiction may be challenged in any court except on the grounds of fraud.
Posted By: John Anderson
Date: 2008-03-30 17:43:13
The exact text of the amendment reads: "No court in the United States may enjoin an initiative election except on grounds of fraud." It only refers to the election of an initiative itself. Now, I may have missed something, so if there's another portion of the amendment you're referring to please let me know.
And yeah, I would agree with you on the Supreme Court issue.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved.