In one of the most dramatic moments in Senate history, the Democrats refused to let Roland Burris enter the Senate chamber today. Democrats do not want to recognize an appointment from Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the seat to replace President-elect Barack Obama. Burris attempted to be sworn in on the first day of the 111th Congress, but was told by the Secretary of the Senate that his credentials “were not in order.”
Nancy Erickson, the Senate secretary, initially cited the absence of the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White as the reason for rejecting the appointment. Burris is trying to get the Illinois Supreme Court to order White to sign the form. White has no authority to refuse his signature and is claiming the right to unilaterally block an appointment because he simply does not like or is suspicious of the appointing governor. No one has claimed that Burris bought this seat and indeed he would have been on the list of likely candidates for any governor.
It is clear that White’s actions are not true reason for extraordinary action. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others stated their intention to block the appointment based on the governor’s scandal. Indeed, Reid said that, if his credentials are valid, the Senate would “proceed in a manner that is respectful to Mr. Burris, while ensuring that there is not a cloud of doubt over the appointment.”
To make matters worse, there is a rumor that Burris is being asked to guarantee that, if he is sworn in, he will not run in 2010. Given the fact that the democrats have no legal basis to deny him this appointment, such a proposal would magnify the gross abuse of power.
For Democrats who have complained about George Bush’s abusive use of authority, this is a terrible way to begin their control of both the Congress and the White House. Just as the Bush Administration argued that the President can torture because he says he can, the Democrats are claiming the right to bar any member because they can. It would create a precedent that they will regret and only fuels GOP efforts to block Al Franken. At least the GOP can cite an election controversy, the Democrats have no legal claim against this appointment.
For the full story, click here.
This is one of those unfortunate instances where the law protects the wrong thing. The law states that the governor may select a Senator to replace another one that is unable to serve. Blagojevich, who is still governor, has done this (maybe one of his few law-abiding acts). The senate does not have the right to block people based on the fact that they were selected by a governor they are at odds with, and therefor is breaking the law.
Reid is better served to suck it up, and allow Burris in, and hope that somehow they can find a work-around. He does not have the power to bargain with Burris to prevent him from being re-elected (however slim the possibility) to the Senate. He’s creating a dangerous precedent as you have said, and maybe we ought to look into Reid’s worthiness while we’re at it.
JT,
What kind of country would we be if we applied the laws all the time instead of just when we felt like it?
Gyres
I suggest the unfortunate answer to your question about what kind of country we would be is: The first ever…
Prof Turley, to clarify your position? If Blagojevich had been impeached from the beginning (something I think should have happened) would you still feel that the rejection of Burris was unreasonable? I would like to know if you’re conflicted because of personal political reasons (understandable, given the circumstances) or if you are concerned for the blatant circumvention of the established constitutional procedures. For the record I agree with you on this issue, I just want to make sure we’re arriving at it from the same vector.
Even though Patrick Fitzgerald has a solid reputation, and even though many (myself included) are persuaded to believe that Blagojevich may be a class-A sleazeball, the system of justice has to run its course. So far he has been accused. Senator Ted Stevens got to remain a senator throughout his own trial on corruption charges (even stating afterward that he had been acquitted when in fact he was convicted).
It’s unfortunate that Fitzgerald has had to push his indictment further back (3 months?) and nobody likes to think there is a corrupt governor making senate appointments, but he has yet to be PROVEN to be corrupt.
Can it be that the Democrats I voted for across-the-board are as stupid, corrupt—legally and politically—and as constitutionally ignorant as my Republican Party is; or more so?
What an unconscionable display of legislative and judicial incompetence.
It’s starting to look that way, FFLEO. As I’ve written in prior posts, more and more it appears to be one, big, happy family there in D.C. and we’re just the suckers who, like Charlie Brown, think that this time nobody is going to yank away the football.
Back in ’06, after Pelosi declared that impeachment was off the table, I began to wonder what the point was of having law makers or a justice department if the law was never going to be enforced and justice would not be ‘on the table’.
I agree with what people above said. I am much more scared of a senate that disregards the law than I am of seating Burris. I see this as a piece with that group’s total disdain for the rule of law and our Constitution. And these people worry about flag burning? They probably burn their cigars into copies of the Constitution and laugh about it. I think they are dangerous. We have one somewhat functional branch of govt., the judiciary, that’s it.
I must admit to being the contrarian here and more in the Larry Tribe camp on this one. Ever since Vince Treachy raised the point,I have thought about Tribe’s article in Forbes. I think he makes a valid point that while the Senate may not bar a member on strictly ideological grounds (Powell v. McCormack), its hands are not so tied in a circumstance such as this where the appointment itself (as opposed to the appointee) offends the integrity of the Senate.
Tribe says:
“But the arguments saying the Senate must seat Burris miss the mark as well. The fact that he is indisputably “qualified” in the constitutional sense has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole “Judge of the Elections”–and, by extension, the temporary appointments–of would-be members.
…
“But that the Senate’s early December decision to exclude any Blagojevich appointee reflected nothing about the particular person he appointed cuts for, not against, leaving the matter to the judicially unreviewable judgment of the Senate itself.
For the danger of invoking doubts about the process of election or appointment, as a pretext for excluding someone that a Senate majority finds objectionable, is minimized when the decision to exclude is made in advance of any individual’s appointment, and thus under the classical philosopher’s veil of ignorance about whose ox might be gored.”
This seems to elevate the matter out of the ideological quagmire that the Powell case tried to remedy, and preserves the right of the Senate to control its membership under its Constitutional mandate to “judge” elections. The difference in the Burris situation is manifest as the Senate chooses to avoid any Blogo appointments and not merely an appointee with whom it has ideological differences. I believe this is a distinction with a difference from the decision in Powell.
The Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, released a statement explaining why she refused to seat Roland Burris:
“On Monday, January 5, 2009, the Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, met with Clayton Harris, Chief of Staff to Governor Blagojevich, who presented Mrs. Erickson with a Certificate of Appointment for Roland Burris to fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The certificate did not comply with Senate Rule II in that it lacked both the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, and the Seal of the State of Illinois. Mr. Harris was informed of these deficiencies, and, as is our procedure, the Secretary retained the certificate and all supporting materials on behalf of the Senate.
“On Tuesday, January 6, 2009, the Secretary had a very cordial meeting in her office with Mr. Burris, his counsel and staff during which the Secretary explained to Mr. Burris and his counsel directly the reasons that his certificate did not comply with Senate Rule II.
Additionally, as the decision of whom to seat as a Senator is a decision of the Senate, Mr. Burris was advised that the Senate could refer the matter to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Following the brief and amicable meeting about the Senate Rules and an opportunity for photos, Mr. Burris and his counsel remained in the Secretary’s office to hold a meeting of their own.”
Standing Rules of the Senate.
RULE II, PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
1. The presentation of the credentials of Senators elect or of Senators designate and other questions of privilege shall always be in order, except during the reading and correction of the Journal, while a question of order or a motion to adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum; and all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of.
2. The Secretary shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed.
3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit.
THE RECOMMENDED FORMS FOR CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
…
CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT
To the President of the Senate of the United States:
This is to certify that, pursuant to the power vested in me by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of __, I, A__ B__, the governor of said State, do hereby appoint C__ D__ a Senator from said State to represent said State in the Senate of the United States until the vacancy therein caused by the __ of E__ F__, is filled by election as provided by law.
Witness: His excellency our governor __, and our seal hereto affixed at ___ this __ day of __, in the year of our Lord 19__.
By the governor:
G__ H__,
Governor.
I__ J__,
Secretary of State.
Former Federal LEO, you don’t know Dick?
Last time I checked Cheney didn’t even know if he was being incompetent in the legislative branch or the judicial branch of government. Nuance!
Worst vice-prez ever, not to mention he shot a man, his friend, in the face!
I think this is a good time to wait for some more light to be shed on the situtation.
Burris was not Martin Luther mythically nailing his theses to the church door. He simply showed up with an incomplete credential.
The Illinois Secretary of State refused to sign the form as a matter of personal principle, but said that he would sign if if the court ordered it. The court can issue a mandamus to require him to exercise a nondiscretionary duty, and at that point the papers will be in order.
That is the beaurocratic problem.
The problem of principle is that the Governor put the seat up for sale.
Now a guy shows up with title to that seat.
The Senate is not obliged to rubber stamp this affair without a searching inquiry. The matter can go to the rules committee. The ultimate decision is for the full Senate. That is what the Constitution says. The Senate is the “Judge.”
This is not about democracy. This is an appointment, not an election.
And the laws are being followed. Everyone else has to show up with a credential signed by the State’s Secretary of State, and Burris is no different under the laws and rules than anyone else.
VT thanks for your breakdown.
Why doesn’t the court do its job, issue the mandamus, seat Mr. Burris, and then let the legislature do its constitutional duty through their rules committees? The Secretary of State did not do his job, thereby allowing judicial intervention.
The logical stepwise process in the Burris case should have been; executive (done); legislative (undone by the Secretary of State and the Senate) and then the judiciary, if needed and rarely the case.
However, a competent judiciary should see the need to prevent a potential minor constitutional crisis by intervening to encourage legislative action; especially given the nondiscretionary and bureaucratic nature of the Secretary’s signature.
Since we’re in the Theater of the Political Absurd here, did anyone catch John Yoo and John Bolton’s article in the NYT? The two great patriots are arguing for limits on Executive authority. That’s right the Torturing Twins are pushing the Senate’s “advice and consent” role over the Executive Branch’s power to make treaties,and lamenting the diminished role of the legislature. Clever attack on the new administration or damage control for sinking careers? Bring on the hankies I feel crocodile tears welling up.
Here’s the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=3
Mespo,
It’s just a reproduction of one of the great moments in Dadaism. I’ve got to give them a hand, this is way clearer statement of the absurdity of human existence than erasing a sketch as some one draws it.
Mespo,
Make that “adaptation of one of the…” my kid (who turns 1 tomorrow) somehow managed to erase “adaptation” and replace it with “reproduction.”
Mespo, you said it first
- AND best, IMHO!
mespo727272 1, December 30, 2008 at 8:13 pm
‘In my view Burris should accept the appointment until Blagojevich either is impeached or resigns and then promptly resign his post in the Senate. That would permit the new governor to make a new interim appointment and would cast Burris as patriot rather than serving under a taint of corruption. It is always difficult to give up power for the nation’s good. But it should be consolation that of all the famous Romans we know, Cincinnatus is still remembered (and honored) for doing just that. Call me Pollyanna.’
The position of the Senate on the Burris matter is absurd on a number of levels. First, it is not legally defensible. I believe there is agreement that Mr. Burris meets the constitutional qualifications to be a senator. But Prof. Tribe’s comments notwithstanding, the authority of the Senate to “judge” elections must be exercised in accordance with some sort of standard. The only appropriate standard is whether the election meets the requirements of applicable state law. I have yet to see a comment suggesting that the appointment of Mr. Burris violated the law of the State of Illinois. The failure to date of the Illinois Secretary of State to sign off on the appointment is meaningless. As has already been noted, that is a ministerial act customarily enforced by mandamus.
If Senate Democrats attempt to defend their opposition on the basis of a perceived taint in the appointment process or on vague notions of fairness, their efforts will properly be perceived as arbitrary. One of the purposes of the Seventeenth Amendment was to prevent the imposition of extraneous rules for admission into the club.
More importantly, and fundamentally, the poor judgment on the part of Sen. Reid and others in the leadership represents an attempt to substitute so-called “institutional prerogatives” for the rule of law, something which I find abhorrent whether originating in the legislative or executive branch. Have we learned nothing from eight years of the “unitary executive”?
Mike:P
Do you give no import to the terms “returns and qualifications” contained in the clause?
Mike:
Forgive the “P”. Bad typing and not an emoticon.
The following was written by Sophia Nelson.
“llinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s choice of a veteran black politician Roland Burris to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat should be certified by the Illinois Secretary of State. Period.
This is clearly a state issue and NOT one to be decided by Harry Reid in the Senate. In my legal and political opinion, the Secretary of State should be fired because he has refused to enforce a legal appointment by the sitting Governor of the State of Illinois.
I am stunned at what I am hearing on TV and from the politicians. Particularly those in the democratic party. Rod Blagojevich is the Governor of Illinois–like it or not. He is. He has NOT YET been indicted or found guilty of impeachable crimes. In America folks, we live by the rule of law–innocent till proven guilty. We are flirting with disaster if we start throwing political leaders out of office because of what we heard they might have done, or if we don’t like what they did.
The prosecutor needs to do his job and quickly–not 90 days from now. … While I did not approve of the Governor’s apparent violations of professional ethics–he is the Governor until he is removed from office by the legislature or people of Illinois.”
Gyges,
Congratulations on your child turning one. That’s a big deal. Happy Birthday is in order!
Jill:
I appreciate Sophia Nelson’s take on things, but as a Republican she likely has less than noble or objective reasons for judging the leadership of a party that just knocked hers from power. It seems to me the law is not for mindless adherence. If a valid interpretation of existing law can be made to deny a victory to corruption or its appearance, then it should be so interpreted. The law is not so clear on these facts, and if a court case needs to be filed go to it. In the meantime, let Burris sit elsewhere.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama warned Tuesday that the federal deficit is likely to rise to close to $1 trillion for 2009.
“We’re already looking at a $1 trillion budget deficit or close to a $1 trillion budget deficit, and potentially we’ve got $1 trillion deficits for years to come,” Mr. Obama said.
at online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html
OBAMA IS ANNOUNCING TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME!
Yup, Obama & the Democrats are going to bankrupt America.
Nelson is wrong, the U.S. Constitution makes the Senate the judge of the elections returns and qualifications of Members. She may not like it, but that is the rule.
Mike Appleton is correct that the Senate is the judge, and there must be standards, but he has “yet to see a comment suggesting that the appointment of Mr. Burris violated the law of the State of Illinois.”
Excuse us. Putting a Senate seat up for sale violates the law of EVERY state.
Mr. Blagovich HIMSELF suggested that he might violate that law by selling the seat.
That was his stated intention.
Is that not enough FOR AN INVESTIGATION BY THE SENATE?
QUOTE
In the earliest intercepted conversation about the Senate seat described in the affidavit, Blagojevich told Deputy Governor A on November 3 that if he is not going to get anything of value for the open seat, then he will take it for himself: “if . . . they’re not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it.” Later that day, speaking to Advisor A, Blagojevich said: “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain.” He added later that the seat “is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.” UNQUOTE
It appears the whole Democratic Congress is turning out to be more crooked than the half dozen Republicans linked to Jack Abramoff.
PS: Obama just said we would have trillion dollar deficits for years. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
I’m not qualified to argue this level of legal complexity but there certainly seems to be a lot of “taint” going on in the US Senate. Why are some “taints” acceptable and others, not?
mespo, I do give import to that language. The difficulty is that all of the comments coming from the Senate use terms that can be applied at any time in any situation to justify wholly capricious actions. To say that one is uncomfortable with the manner in which the appointment was made or that one is concerned that the appointment was tainted is singularly unhelpful in addressing the legitimate scope of the Senate’s authority under the Constitution. Indeed, I heard Sen. Reid state on “Meet the Press” that he was open to “negotiations.” Since when is the seating of a U.S. senator a matter for negotiation?
Under Article I, Section 5, the Senate has authority to judge the “elections, returns and qualifications” of its members. The “qualifications” test is met, according to Powell v. McCormack, if a senator satisfies the requirements set forth in Article I, Section 3. I believe that the “elections, returns” language relates to the validity of the election or the appointment process, as the case may be. For example, if Illinois law prohibited a governor form exercising the appointment power if there are formal criminal charges pending against him, the Senate could quite properly refuse to seat Mr. Burris. However, to my knowledge, Illinois law contains no such statutory prohibition. The fact that the process may appear distasteful under the circumstances should not be a factor in the decision.
If the Senate is permitted to refuse to seat a senator based solely upon a subjective determination that the manner in which the seat was procured is somehow offensive, albeit legal, the Seventeenth Amendment and the power of the states to control their own elections is essentially eviscerated. It is the legislative equivalent of attaching signing statements to the Constitution. The potential for abuse is enormous. Democrats have fought hard to return to power and a lot of work will need to be done to restore respect for law. Refusing to seat Mr. Burris for the reasons proffered to date is a sorry beginning to that task.
Mespo:
“It seems to me the law is not for mindless adherence. If a valid interpretation of existing law can be made to deny a victory to corruption or its appearance, then it should be so interpreted. The law is not so clear on these facts, and if a court case needs to be filed go to it. In the meantime, let Burris sit elsewhere.”
Mespo,
I agree with Chemerinsky in so much as the opponents to the appointment of Burris have absolutely no legal leg to stand on. Burris was legally appointed by the state executive and the Illinois secretary of state has no veto power over the executive.
Further, congress was never delegated a discretionary power as to who shall serve.
From ‘POWELL v. McCORMACK’ 395 U.S. 486 at 533-534)
Citing James Madison as stating such discretionary power would be:
“an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a Republican Govt. and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature [395 U.S. 486, 534] could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected, as the number authorised to elect. . . . It was a power also, which might be made subservient to the views of one faction agst. another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised, by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of [a weaker] faction.” Id., at 249-250.”
This was the second time mespo said it ‘right’
- in the same evening!
The point being that if the State of IL is not on top of its own affairs then the US Senate stands at the ready to take over and do what needs doing.
The message is actually very simple.
———–
# mspo727272 1, December 31, 2008 at 2:25 am
Well after seeing that incredible and pathetic press conference where Burris was named the appointee by the Governor-for-hire, and hearing him speak with the aid of his pious friend, Rep. Bobby Rush, ex-Black Panther and apparently present day race baiter, I have modified my position. I now am certain the Senate should interdict the entire State of Illinois until such time as the Governor-for-Hire is out of there and then call a special election to fill the seat. Chicago politics is crazy, but this is just plain stupid and Mr. Burris appears to have all the political and intellectual acumen of the current resident of that big white house on the opposite end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol.
# 24 Patty C 1, December 31, 2008 at 2:58 am
‘I now am certain the Senate should interdict the entire State of Illinois until such time as the Governor-for-Hire is out of there and then call a special election to fill the seat.’
—–
Me too, mespo. I watched Burris on Rachel.
The look on her face undoubtedly mirrored my own.
===
# 25 Mojo 1, December 31, 2008 at 3:42 am
Mespo and Patty C -
My sentiments exactly. This thing stinks. Their argument boils down to, “It may not be right, but it’s legal.”
Sure it is, and it still stinks.
It appears the whole Democratic Congress is turning out to be more crooked than the half dozen Republicans linked to Jack Abramoff.
PS: Obama just said we would have trillion dollar deficits for years. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
First of all,
I want to ask the resident Troll where the bank bailout one Trillion dollars that was requested by Paulson and Bush??
Secondly,
I have to admit that it is hard to listen to the Senate when they talk about an appointment being “tainted”. I think Prof. Turley is correct that the appointment is legal and until the Governor is convicted and/or impeached. If the Senate can stop a legal appointment because they think the Governor is dirty, what happened to the rule of law?
finally, Mespo, I had not seen the op-ed by Bolton and Yoo. It is so far out that I had to check my meds to make sure I wasn’t seeing pink elephants. The gall of the neocons is truly amazing.
The whole Democratic Congress is turning out to be more crooked than the half dozen Republicans linked to Jack Abramoff.
Obama just said we would have a trillion dollar defict in 2010 and trillion dollar deficits for years. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?
I can tell you where this money is going; to the same people that funded his campaign to buy the Presidency in 2008.
BASTARDS!
A CROOK THAT PARDONED TERRORISTS AS OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL – HOLDER.
A WOMAN THAT DOESN’T RESPECT OUR BORDERS AS OUR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR.
A GUY WITH ZERO NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE AS OUR CIA DIRECTOR.
I GUESS UNDER OBAMA WE RUN UP THE WHITE FLAGS ON 1/21/09.
YA ALL WERE DUPED!
Mike Appleton:
“I believe that the “elections, returns” language relates to the validity of the election or the appointment process, as the case may be.”
************
I agree with you on your interpretation of the word “qualifications” in light of Powell, which I find improperly decided on the mootness issue alone. In any event,I also agree with your cited language above. It seems to me that the validity of the appointment process is at issue in those remaining two words, and the attempted sale of the seat is a bona fide reason to investigate the matter further as Vince Treachy notes. Until that is accomplished I agree with Vince that he should not serve. I also think that there is an argument that the Senate may deny membership to a class of appointees (those sent by Blogo) in this circumstance (as Professor Tribe argues) else the words “elections,” and “returns” would be surplusage in the clause. I do not think the Founders intended those terms to be precatory, and I believe it imparts to the Senate the power to deny membership in extraordinary circumstances such as these. As I have read many times on this blog, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
mespo,
I just don’t see how the appt. of Burris rises to “extraordinary circumstances”. This seems especially strange to me in that the Senate has ignored their duty under truly extraordinary circumstances that have arisen again and again since 2000. For one they could have blocked bush from becoming president in 2000 or 2004 if they were concerned about justice and the welfare of this nation. They have consitently violated the law, overlooked violations of the law by the executive and their own members and enabled the same. What the Senate has failed to do for 8 years is care about the rule of law nor have they cared to stand up to gross violations of human rights. So why is this matter the one thing they’ve cared about? If they had been asserting the rule of law and justice the last 8 years this matter might rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” but there is something passing strange about their new found worry about “taint”. The Senate’s failure to follow the law has been the much larger problem and they continue a near unbroken tradition with this case.
Sorry to be late to this party but being visited by my children and grandchildren takes precedence.
Mespo, it was bound to happen at some point, but even though I have the greatest respect for your intelligence and insight, you are flat out wrong in this instance. Here again are the salient points.
1. Illinois needs both its’ Senators, now.
2. Blago has not been indicted, won’t be for at least 3 months, and the only thing against him are snippets of tapes which may
(or may not)be edited by the prosecutors,
3. FitzG is not the pristine soul the media portrays him as. His Plame investigation and prosecution smells strongly to me of a cover up of the guilt of Cheney, Rove and Bush.
4. His request for a 90 day indictment extension, on what was purported to be a “slam dunk” case, causes me to be suspicious about how strong the case really is.
5. For instance it is possible that before or after Blago said the appointment was a “gold mine” he then stated “too bad I can’t get anything for it.” Just an example of how tapes can be edited into distortion. If you think I’m crazy Google Rev. Wright’s history and you discover that other than a video loop he has been a rather distinguished Minister and not the clown the media portrays him as.
6. Blago’s appointment was lawful and the only argument against it has to be intertwined with a guilty until proven innocent mindset.
7. The Adam Clayton Powell case was a travesty of justice overturned after years of his racist exclusion. The Senate has no right to do the same based on neither evidence, impeachment or indictment.
8. Harry Reid is a Red State clown who should not be Majority Leader.
To me, at least, the logic is solid and Burris must be seated right away.
The Constitution provides in Art. I, sec. 5, that Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” As we have seen, it also makes each House the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. I think Mespo has made it clear that the Burris matter is a question of elections and returns, rather than qualifications. The Powell case makes it clear that Congress cannot add extra-constitutional qualifications for a duly elected member. If Congress wants to single out a member because of bad conduct, it must act to expel by a 2-3ds vote. But Congress retains the right to investigate all elections and appointments.
The vast majority of contested election cases arise in the House, where they elect (no appointments) 435 members every two years. For the procedures on judging the “elections and returns” in contested House races, take a look at this Report:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33780_20070104.pdf
As noted, there have been a lot of contested House elections:
http://www.voteraction.org/files/crsreport2006.pdf
The Senate elects only 33 members each two years, does not have nearly as many contests, and does not have codified procedures for contested elections. For the last contested Senate race, see the remarks of Senator Lott, vol. 143 Cong. Rec. p. S5 (Jan 1997): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi Sen. Lott stated that a Senator subject to a contested election may be seated “without prejudice.” This means without prejudice to the right of the Senate to determine the outcome of the contested election.
Before new Senators are sworn in, the leadership may provide for a brief status report and plan for their resolution:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BPLG9%220%20%20
I think the Powell case has limited use here. First, Burris was not duly elected. He has an appointment by the Governor, but it does not carry the seal of the State of Illinois and the signature of the Secretary of State, as required by the Senate Rules. Those Rules may be a formality, but the Secretary of the Senate cannot waive them. The Rules themselves are constitutionally based and may be waived only by the Senate. At the very least, Burris should go back to Illinois and get a court-ordered seal. If he cannot get a court order, he has to ask the Senate to waive the requirement.
Second, Powell was a qualifications case, not an elections and returns case. The Burris case is about the validity of the process, not the character or deeds of the candidate. Tribe has noted that the Senate has said in advance that it would question anyone appointed under this process.
People keep saying that Blago has not been convicted or impeached. But they forget that the need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard to keep out of jail or to avoid removal. It is not needed to open a Senate investigation into an appointment process where the Governor in his own words has stated an intent to put the Seat up for sale. There is far more than enough evidence for reasonable doubt about Blago’s intentions and for an inquiry into all the circumstances. It is more like the standard for a search warrant than a conviction.
This is from a radio blurb I just heard on NPR. Evidently Reid has dropped other objections to seating Burris except for waiting for a court ruling about the Sec. of State’s signature. It was only a blurb but it did appear he’d changed to this being the real objection to seating Burris. I would urge checking this out in more detail.
Josh Marshall reported, January 7, 2009, 11:41AM:At their press conference just now, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin announced that there is no action being taken on Roland Burris’ appointment to the Senate — at least not yet.
“There’s going to come a time when the entire Senate is going to have to act on this,” Reid said.
“And that day I hope would come sooner rather than later.”
Reid and Durbin both went to great lengths to say how much they like and respect Burris, and how constructive the meeting they just had with him was. But for now, they’re waiting on two things: A ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether the missing signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is required for the appointment to be valid, and for Burris’ testimony tomorrow before the Illinois House impeachment committee.ENDQUOTE
And Huffington Post just reported an apparent decision to seat Roland Burris after aides to President-elect Barack Obama contacted senior Senate Democrats and suggested that they reverse course and accept Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s controversial appointment, according to a senior Dem congressional aide. While reports signaled his imminent seating, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the AP report was “wrong,” and that “there have been no decisions.”
Stay tuned.
Vince,
A few points on which we disagree:
“I think Mespo has made it clear that the Burris matter is a question of elections and returns, rather than qualifications.”
I’m not sure what this means, but on the surface this is clearly not a case of elections and returns. It is a case of prosecutorial zealotry that has offered edited tapes/transcripts in order to convict a man before indictment and/or trial. Do I think Blago is a corrupt jerk, yes I do, but I’m also acutely aware that my judgment is based on MSM reporting. MSM reporting for the most part is a cacophony of drivel spouted by shallow people and so any reasonable citizen should not rely on it.
“The Powell case makes it clear that Congress cannot add extra-constitutional qualifications for a duly elected member.”
Since our constitution purportedly endorses the principle of presumed innocence, until other wise proven, what then is the viable rationale for exclusion barring any indictment/conviction?
There is none except a suspect prosecutor grandstanding, edited tapes and a rush to judgment by Harry Reid. Burris was chosen in a lawful and normal process, which if it proves (after FitzG’s usual years of procrastination)corrupt at base could then be remedied.
“People keep saying that Blago has not been convicted or impeached. But they forget that the need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard to keep out of jail or to avoid removal. It is not needed to open a Senate investigation into an appointment process where the Governor in his own words has stated an intent to put the Seat up for sale.”
You’re right that you don’t need any evidence to open a Senate investigation as the Senate’s long history of political game playing (See Joseph McCarthy for instance)has proven. However, your belief that “in his own words” he’s convicted himself does an injustice. First we only have an edited version of his own words which is doubtless edited for the prosecution’s benefit.
Second, if what is on tape has convicted him so clearly why has the indictment been delayed?
“He has an appointment by the Governor, but it does not carry the seal of the State of Illinois and the signature of the Secretary of State, as required by the Senate Rules.”
I don’t think the signature is required per Senate rules as per Keith and Rachel last night.
“Second, Powell was a qualifications case, not an elections and returns case. The Burris case is about the validity of the process, not the character or deeds of the candidate.”
I think that to state that this is about process is in the end somewhat disingenuous. To me this is about a public lynching of a Governor. Who, though no doubt is a corrupt jerk, nevertheless should have the right to have his side heard before judgment is pronounced.
Secondly, I remember the Powell case very clearly having lived through it as a New Yorker. Adam Clayton Powell was a man ahead of his time who battled for the rights of Afro-Americans and made true statements that the White Establishment deemed impolitic, even if they were spot on. He also had the temerity to date white women in a time when miscegenation laws were on the books of many States. The action against him was also a lynching and that is pertinent here. From a legal perspective Blago’s appointment was a legal one and should not be overturned because of media bred distaste.
rafflaw:
“I have to admit that it is hard to listen to the Senate when they talk about an appointment being “tainted”. I think Prof. Turley is correct that the appointment is legal and until the Governor is convicted and/or impeached. If the Senate can stop a legal appointment because they think the Governor is dirty, what happened to the rule of law?”
rafflaw,
Do you find any of the arguments in favor of blocking the appointment persuasive at all? Even if the governor is later impeached, the appointment still stands. Congress would have to follow procedure and impeach Burris individually.
I completely agree with your sentiment about the rule of law; congress has no equity court powers and congress has no delegated discretionary power to block an appointment. And I’d add this to JT’s remarks, in so much as congress attempts to exercise power beyond that which was delegated to it within the constitution, it completely disregards Article IV’s guarantee of a republican form of government.
SIYOM,
Bob
Mike Spindell: The rule says: ” 2. The Secretary shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed.”
That’s the Rule. That is all I meant when I said the secretary of state’s signature was required by the Rules. I don’t know what Keith and Rachel said.
The latest news is that Burris will go back and get the signature.
I have already given my arguments against the Senate’s actions in the Burris matter. I certainly do not put myself in Prof. Tribe’s league on issues of constitutional law. However, the application of his views to the current mess require an intellectual subtlety that is missing in the Senate. Furthermore, Democrats will not be in control forever. At such time as the Republicans regain a congressional majority, recent history tells us that their deliberations will be colored by a strong dose of anti-intellectual, anti-academic fervor. A bad precedent set by Democrats in this case can be used by Republicans in the future to justify their own views about “judging” the elections and qualifications of newly minted senators. For me, at least, that is one scary thought.
The outcome of the Burris matter will be as follows: (a.) If the Senate refuses to seat him (after the Illinois Secretary of State has been slapped down), he will prevail in a court battle. (b.) Sen. Reid will once again wind up looking foolish, either because he will have backed down or will have been forced to accept the Burris appointment. (c.) The Democrats will appear disorganized and indecisive. The result is damage to the goodwill and credibility the party presently enjoys following the Obama election.
Mike Spindell, a qualifications case determines if the candidate meets the constitutional qualifications, age 35, a citizen for 9 years, and a resident of the state for which chosen. Art I, sec. 3, cl.2. The Powell case bars any additional requirements. Elections and returns cases involve contests over elections or appointments where the candidates meet the qualifications. Burris meets the qualifications. The dispute is over the appointment.
Personnally, I do not think the Senate has to accept an appointment signed by a guy who said himself on tape that the seat was up for sale, without further inquiry. I would not take a check from a guy who had said on tape that he intended to kite a check. Maybe the check is valid, but I want to know for sure.
No one has to depend on the MSM. I went to the net for the actual Senate Rule. The net has the complete complaint against Blago for everyone to read, without any MSN filtration.
I provided my views above and elsewhere about seating Mr. Burris. My perspective—as a man who wants limited government as a conservative Republican and who had a 25-year career as a federal employee with 3 additional years in the military—is that I do not want the Republicans to have the pleasure of experiencing just what Mike Appleton stated might likely happen.
Mr. Reid is foolish, the Democrats are acting just the way they have always done my fouling up their own party, and I am regretting my vote for them. I thought that after 8 disastrous years of the imbecilic and corrupt Bush Administration that surely the Democrats would not behave as they are now.
Why can’t a court with jurisdiction send a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of State legally compelling him to sign the appointment document instead of having the Illinois Supreme Court first making a ruling about the long-established rules?
The Secretary of State does not have the discretionary powers to decide the merits of Blagojevich’s appointment; he is just a bureaucrat certifying (promulgating) the executive’s appointment.
Mike Appleton:
I think you forgot “(d)” which is the Democrats will have shown themselves to have acted in accord with the public’s wishes according to the recent polls and will have been seen as trying to stop corruption. It’s not bad to have fought for the right and lost; it’s bad to not have fought at all.
The Secretary of State is acting in an arbitrary manner that should give everyone pause. He signed other Blago papers but is refusing to sign these. This is a dangerous precedent.
Here’s my take away message. There is no priciple in the actions of the Senate, if there were they would not be willing to abandon them in one day’s time at the request of Mr. Obama. Other people have given very good analysis of what happens when Senators from the same party as the president start acting as if he is their party leader instead of the head of another branch of govt. This was a disaster with regards to bush and Senate Democrats look like they are going the same way.
As for activism it seems clear that the Senate is motivated (with some exceptions) by a. expediency and b. fear of Mr. Obama. Therefore should matters come before the Senate it makes no sense to appeal to the vast majority of these people any other way than to use tactics which appeal to expediency and put the force of activism onto Mr. Obama who will in turn pressure the Senate to act.
Signed,
Disgusted!
Mespo,
Is your statement, including “trying to stop corruption” tongue-in-cheek?
Bob,Esq:
“I completely agree with your sentiment about the rule of law; congress has no equity court powers and congress has no delegated discretionary power to block an appointment.”
***********
Than what does the word “Judge” mean in the context of Article I, Sec. 5 which says: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ….”
FFLeo:
Not really. There is at least some effort to stop the appearance of corruption and that is a positive development.
Thank you Sir.
Jill:
“I just don’t see how the appt. of Burris rises to “extraordinary circumstances”.”
*********
I suppose “extraordinary” could be in the eye of the beholder, but in my half century on the planet I cannot remember a case where a sitting governor has been recorded haggling over the “price” of an appointment to the US Senate, or considered appointing himself to avoid state impeachment proceedings.
mespo,
You just haven’t heard the recordings!
I still believe that taint was not the motivation of the Senate, that their disregard for the rule of law has been both consistent and flagrant and I fear their actions in this regard. The past 8 years of disregard for the rule of law has to my mind been “extraordinary”.
Mespo:
“Than what does the word “Judge” mean in the context of Article I, Sec. 5 which says: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ….”
Like I said, I agree with Chemerinsky:
http://tinyurl.com/8p3shv
Prof. Chemerinsky is absolutely correct. Huffington Post is now reporting that Judicial Watch has filed suit in D.C. today to compel the Senate to seat Mr. Burris. In addition to the embarrassing lack of legal and political judgment by the Senate leadership on this issue, we now have to witness the spectacle of Republican legal ideologues taking advantage of my party’s stupidity. If Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid remain in charge, we’ll be lucky if Pres. Obama’s legislative agenda gets anywhere.
This has been a very cordial discussion, and I have learned a lot. Thank you, everyone.
On a technical point, the learned Dean Chemerinsky may have nodded for just a moment. He wrote QUOTE The problem here is that Burris unquestionably was lawfully selected. According to the 17th Amendment, “When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.” Illinois law gives this power to the state governor, and that is Blagojevich until he is impeached and found guilty. UNQUOTE
Actually, Blago did not order an election under that clause. He acted under the 17th Amendment’s Proviso that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. I think some states have done away with this and mandated elections. I favor that. Appointments by governors are inherently undemocratic and obsolete.
The reports now say that Burris may have to do a three-step. One, Burris must get the signature and seal on his credentials, voluntarily or by court order. Everyone seems to want this case expedited. Two, Burris must testify Thursday under oath and give an affidavit to the Illinois impeachment committee. That gets Burris to tell his side of the story, under penalty of perjury. Three, the Senate Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction of all election and appointment disputes, must review the matter and make a recommendation to the full Senate. (Btw, not all congressional investigations are bad. Remember the Senate Watergate Committee. I remember the Army-McCarthy hearings that brought Joe down.) The full Senate has the final say – under the Constitution.
Any lawsuit by Judicial Watch at this point would be pretty premature, and a probable bid for headlines. Do they have standing? Is the matter ripe for decision before the Senate acts? Is there a question of justiciability, since the matter may have been committed by constitutional text to a co-equal branch of government?
If Burris plays ball, he may well be seated. Al Franken seems to have had the good sense stay back home for a while, maybe until all the state court rulings are final, or at least until the Senate gives him a signal. Burris should have waited for the Illinois Supreme Court to punch his plane ticket.
Erwin Chemerinsky is repeating the mantra but avoiding the issue about the scope of the Senate’s discretion here. He quite properly says, “But the Supreme Court has been clear that these words do not bestow on the House or the Senate unfettered discretion in deciding whom to seat.” The question though is what discretion does the Constitution bestow. With respect to the qualification component, the rule in Powell’s case still carries the day, my thoughts about its correctness notwithstanding.
Chemerinsky is a little more opaque when he addresses the latter two terms “elections,” and “returns.” Here the good dean relies upon the 17th Amendment to support the notion that the Senate may only look to the technical aspects of State law to determine if a selection is valid. I believe this position to be an unconstitutional delegation of the Senate’s power to “judge” elections and returns. The Body is thus reduced to rubber stamping state law with no discretion. If the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) means anything, the Senate must have the discretion to apply its own standards to state determinations of eligibility for its membership based on the Constitutional principles we have seen eloquently articulated on this thread by the other contributors.
For those in the “seat ‘em now” camp, I ask that you consider this case and assume we learned about the Blogo’s tapes AFTER he had made the appointment. Would we then be so anxious to seat the man we rightly suspected of paying a bribe? Would we move heaven and earth to block that circumstance?
mespo727272 1, January 7, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Mike Appleton:
I think you forgot “(d)” which is the Democrats will have shown themselves to have acted in accord with the public’s wishes according to the recent polls and will have been seen as trying to stop corruption. It’s not bad to have fought for the right and lost; it’s bad to not have fought at all.
—–
Well said.
I would have preferred to see Burris truly ‘lead’ in part by getting out of his own way. He reminds me of Nixon when he says
‘I AM’ the junior Senator from Illinois”.
It would have been fun to see Blago try to appoint himself, but I’m enjoying watching Burris shoot himself in the foot, too. The Senate- not so much. There’s NO haggling over Senate seats, but I doubt Reid need be concerned about Burris in 2010.
Vince, I predict a lot of states will be reconsidering their interim appointment rules.
Mespo:
Erwin Chemerinsky is repeating the mantra but avoiding the issue about the scope of the Senate’s discretion here. He quite properly says, “But the Supreme Court has been clear that these words do not bestow on the House or the Senate unfettered discretion in deciding whom to seat.” The question though is what discretion does the Constitution bestow.”
The Constitution grants no discretion. And rightly so, because, as the Court cited in Powell, such discretion would be:
“an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a Republican Govt. and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected, as the number authorised to elect. . . . It was a power also, which might be made subservient to the views of one faction agst. another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised, by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of [a weaker] faction.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_3_3s1.html
“If the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) means anything, the Senate must have the discretion to apply its own standards to state determinations of eligibility for its membership based on the Constitutional principles we have seen eloquently articulated on this thread by the other contributors.”
Article VI may not be used to increase or expand the powers specifically delegated within Articles I, II, or III. Why? Because Article V says so:
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” See REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
Rhetorically, I often wonder why congresspersons—many of whom are attorneys—are incapable of reasoning like those who post within this forum; except that reasonable lawyers most likely abhor and shun a career in political life.
Former Fed,
Any of the JT bloggers could reason their way through the issue(except fot the trolls, of course)!
Sincerest appreciation to all who’ve posted above. Phenomenally grounded insights, really brilliant, bravo and thanks.
rafflaw
Former Federal LEO
Bob, Esq.
mespo727272
Vince Treacy
Mike Appleton
Jill
Mike Spindell
Gyges
Mojo
MASkeptic
rcampbell
JT
Now would anyone of you like to run for governor of Illinois? The position will be available soon!
Cook County Dem,
I think that you and I may be the only Illinois residents in the list that you provided above, and if that is correct, you better get your resume ready because I am not interested in moving to Springfield.
No I know. Former Fed said it best, “Reasonable lawyers most likely abhor and shun a career in political life.”
CCD,
Former Fed hit one out of the park on that one!
That was a good read; Thank-you all!
Gyges- Happy Birthday to your little one!
Cook County Dem 1, January 7, 2009 at 11:33 pm
No I know. Former Fed said it best, “Reasonable lawyers most likely abhor and shun a career in political life.”
—-
I will take that as a ultimate compliment despite your inadvertent oversight in not including me in your ‘list’.
By the way, I intentionally did not answer your query, weeks ago,
as to how you could assist me (and my team) in the prosecution of Bush et al.
As I stated, I don’t enjoy being ‘used’…
Patty C,
I think Cook County Dem inadvertently missed your name in the list since that happened to 2 others who contributed. This is one of the best single treads around because of the cordiality and information presented. That is the most important reason I access JT’s blawg.
CC Dem did state, “Sincerest appreciation to *all* who’ve posted above.”
I seldom make such lists because I will invariably leave someone off who posted on a long thread. I second the acknowledgement that I appreciated your contributions along with “all who’ve posted above.”
Check, 86 the lists.
Mr. Burris has at least 1 “characteristic” of a politician down pat.
________________________________________________
From HuffPo:
{Quote}:
“Inches away from securing a seat in the United States Senate, Roland Burris suffered what could be a serious setback on Thursday.
Appearing before an Illinois House impeachment committee, Burris acknowledged that he had reached out to a close friend and former chief of staff to embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich to discuss the Senate seat. That appears to contradict Burris’ statement in a sworn affidavit that he had no contact with any of the governor’s “representatives.” The former chief of staff, Alonzo Monk, is named as “Lobbyist 1″ in the criminal complaint, and ran Blagojevich’s most recent reelection campaign.” {End Quote}
huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/burris-admits-he-reached_n_156421.html
The Illinois Legislative wheels of justice are greased and in motion.
Illinois House Votes to Impeach Blagojevich.
State Senate trial, then the feds. Justice for all!
“The Illinois Supreme Court today rejected Roland Burris’ effort to get the signature he needs to complete his appointment to the U.S. Senate.”
I know Professor Turley will start a new post on this topic but I wanted to update this this thread for completeness.
Whoever said politics was not interesting…
FFLeo:
Great grab.
FFLeo:
Just read the article. I love it. The Illinois Supremes won’t require the Sect’y of State (SS) to sign nor does it even require the signature for the certificate to be valid, and the US Senate will not seat him without the certificate signed by the SS under their authority to serve as the “Judge” of “elections and returns.” This sets up quite a power struggle should the Senate Dems stand fast. We may be off to One First Street, NE.
mespo
Do you think Senator Reid will fold and seat Burris?
Supreme court of Illinois.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf
Ah, sweet vindication?…..
I enjoy watching government unfold like this. Great civics lessons for today’s school kids. My 1950s/60s lessons were never so interesting.
Well, I must admit that I had to Google ‘One First Street, NE’!
Thanks for the lesson mespo.
It looks like Senator Reid has to seat Burris now…
Writ denied because it isn’t required.
One would hardly know there was an economic crisis that might be better time/money well spent.
The reason I like the decision is that the court answered my questioning of why a court with jurisdiction could not issue a writ of mandamus to ‘compel’ the Secretary of State to sign the document.
“Under these circumstances, the Senate’s actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the secretary of state. The only issue before us is whether the secretary of state, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not.”
chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/state-court-rebuffs-burris-on-senate-signature.html
CCD: I assume that you are that Democrat fellow from a county called Cook somewhere in Illinois?
Take a look at the letters signed by the State Governors for all the newly elected Senators at this session.
It includes the letter certifying the election of Sen. Durbin, signed by no other than Blago.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S1&position=all
All the letters are signed by a Governor and have the state seal, but they do not have the signatures of the secretaries of state.
The court said at the end of its opinion that anyone can get a copy of Blago’s appoinment document with the State’s seal affixed to it. Burris could get one of these and take it to the Senate.
Although Senate Rule II requires the signature of the Secretary of State, that requirement is not based on the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, and some have said it may be an extra-Constitutional “qualification” in violation of the Powell case.
As noted earlier, the Senate seems to have the power under the rule making clause of the Constitution both to make this Rule, and to waive it.
So the Senate could vote to seat him.
But keep watching the skies. Burris is tangled up in his testimony about his contacts with Blago’s staff about the Senate seat.
FFLEO,
Thanks for the link!
“We note … that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th Amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.”
I’m guessing Burris is seated.
CCD
Also thanks for info and what you wrote earlier. I’m glad you post to this blog.
I can’t help it. Blago is a dead ringer for Bluto in Animal House. After he is convicted and removed by the Senate, I am expecting this at his press conference:
“Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
V.T.
I never saw Animal House so I went to dependable YouTube and I agree with you; perfect match.
Vince T. you are so right about Blagojevich. Back in December, I stopped in the offices of my Illinois State Rep. Just to personally convey the message that Blagojevich needed to be crushed. He’s like a terminator. His wife and two daughters will be well taken care of by Chicago Alderman Dick Mell, (Blagojevich’s father in-law) when his federally authorized vacation day arrives.
Yes maybe something with Burris’ testimony about his contacts with the governors’ staff will get traction. Oh the wicked web we weave. Then the Nixon quote, it’s not the crime that brings you down; it’s the lies you tell to cover it up.
FFLEO your assumption is accurate, as customary. I’m trying to tuck into formation.
I always liked: “dogs and cats living together” when Bill Murray was explaining signs of the apocalypse in Ghostbusters, but the resemblance w/Bluto is an excellent catch Vince.
Please, indulge one more press account summing up Governor Blagojevich. The full article is here:
http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Illinois+first+lady+scrutinized+before+husband+arrested+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=33056716&fb=Y&url
Dick Mell is the Governors father in-law. This quote is from the above link, the interview is from approximately 2006.
Mell, in an interview with the Chicago-Sun Times, castigated Rod Blagojevich as someone who “uses everybody, and when there’s no more use, he discards them.” Mell further said that his daughter was wearing “blinders” and didn’t realize her husband was a manipulative political animal who would “throw anyone under the bus.”
This show will not be over until some how Patty Mell Blagojevich lands under a bus. Having been tossed there by here husband.
Biblical proportions.
CCD:
I think Reid will cave if Obama wants him to do to get the thing over with.
Interesting, an IL State Rep told Olbermann last night that the new legislature will hold another vote on impeachment next week, so that Blago uniquely will be impeached twice in one week. I think this indicates that the Senate votes for conviction are very solid.
I thought the House Republicans who voted to impeach Clinton back in 1998 should have put off their vote until 1999, when a new Congress was seated, or at least should have held a new vote after the voters had spoken. But instead they charged ahead with charges so weak that they could not even get a majority in a Republican-controlled Senate, let alone the necessaryh 2/3ds.
I don’t think the IL legislators are making that mistake.
CCD, as the old joke goes in Chi, I myself have directed in my will that I be buried in my native Boston so that I can continue to vote Democratic long after I die.
Vote, early and often!
On the who does Blago look like front my nomination is the Reverend
Jim Jones, of Jonestown infamy. Put sunglasses on Blago and it’s the same man. Get a YouTube of some of Jones’ speeches and their manner of speaking is eerily similar.
Megalomaniac Reverend Jim Jones does display a similar tone and delivery to Sociopath Governor Blagojevich. I had to turn off the vid when Jones says, if they won’t let us live in piece, then we can die in peace.
Seamus if you’re in town don’t drink the cool-aid!
CCD,
Seamus is so corrupt that cool-aid hath no power over him!
Careful, Spindell. Don’t go giving Professor Turley any ideas. He’s already got this group of mindless sycophants and all he needs is a little push …
“He’s already got this group of mindless sycophants and all he needs is a little push …”
*******
As opposed, I suppose, to that group of knights at the round table which you so ably lead!
mespo -
Sadly, no. I am one of the most mindless of sycophants …
The red state update weighs in—LOL
Blago impeached and removed. 5:50 PM, Jan. 29
town crier:
Man you’re better than CNN. Go, baby, go!!
Unanimous, 59-0.
That’s a blow out we can all get behind!
Yeah,they ran up the score like that basketball coach. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should have put in the substitute Senators for a couple of articles.
tc,
That was a slam dunk! LOL!!
Pós impressionante como de costume … já legendou.