That was a slam dunk! LOL!!

Man you’re better than CNN. Go, baby, go!!

Sadly, no. I am one of the most mindless of sycophants …

*******

As opposed, I suppose, to that group of knights at the round table which you so ably lead!

Seamus is so corrupt that cool-aid hath no power over him!

Seamus if you’re in town don’t drink the cool-aid!

Vote, early and often!

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.

I think Reid will cave if Obama wants him to do to get the thing over with.

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.

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 never saw Animal House so I went to dependable YouTube and I agree with you; perfect match.

“Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”

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.

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.

“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?

Thanks for the lesson mespo.

I enjoy watching government unfold like this. Great civics lessons for today’s school kids. My 1950s/60s lessons were never so interesting.

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

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.

Great grab.

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…

Illinois House Votes to Impeach Blagojevich.

State Senate trial, then the feds. Justice for all!

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

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.”

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’…

Gyges- Happy Birthday to your little one!

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!

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)

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.