Follow-up: Senate Majority Leader Reid says no deal to seat Roland Burris is currently in place
Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris in Senate-AP
Posted in * Economics, Politics, Politics in General
Follow-up: Senate Majority Leader Reid says no deal to seat Roland Burris is currently in place
and here is a link:
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/burris.senate.democrats.2.901914.html
Methinks someone somewhere was paid off.
Quick! Stop that Black Man from entering these hallowed halls!
What extraordinary hypocrisy flowing forth from the Dems on this one …
As a recovering democrat, I do not have much sympathy for them, but in this issue they’re between a rock and hard place. It has nothing to do with Roland Burris’ blackness, but with legality and procedure. Does Blago have the authority to name a senator? Yes, but the criminal allegations and investigation by Illinois and National officials and agencies calls that authority into question. Add to that the fact that Blago’s appointment must be certified by officials in Illinois who refuse to do so, and the assertion that Roland Burris’ credentials are in order is more than imaginative. Blago will not win this one. The democrats in Illinois and in the US Senate will be publicaly shamed along with Blago and poor Roland Burris will have the insteresting claim to fame of having been a senator from Illinois who was never ratified nor seated. It’ll be a great quiz question for the next Illinois scandal.
Illinois Democrats had an opportunity to impeach Blagojevich and declined before this appointment was made. They have made their bed, and they and the national party have to lie in it. I can’t say that I expected Chicago corruption to hit the national stage quite this soon, but it was to be expected.
Illinois politics has been a cesspool for a very, very long time. History proves that the voters in the State willingly elect and re-elect corrupt politicians. It did not begin with Blagojevich, or George Ryan, but can most likely be traced to Chicago – home of the phrase “Vote early and vote often.” I think the only place more corrupt than Illinois (Chicago) is New Orleans.
They had to dig pretty deep to find Burris as he’s been out of politics for quite some time. While I have know specific knowledge of his record, I can’t help but believe that any honest politician would have declined the Govenors appointment and assume that the Govenor has made it worthwhile for Mr. Burris.
The real question is: when will the voters of Illinois ever get serious about reform – or will they?
The_Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:
>> Methinks someone somewhere was paid off
More probably Reid simply saw some poll numbers on how this was being viewed.
Blogojevich’s appointment of Burris is a cynical ploy and turns my stomach.
But the fundamental issue here is whether the Senate has constitutional power to exclude a duly appointed person once that person possesses the requisite certification from the Illinois secretary of state.
No one disputes that Blagojevich is still governor and that Illinois law empowers the governor to fill Senate vacancies. No one is accusing Burris of misconduct. Although the Constitution makes the Senate “the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” this power has limits. The U.S. Supreme Court [url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html]ruled in 1987 that the House could not exclude Adam Clayton for misappropriating government funds[/url].
If the House could not exclude Powell for illegal conduct, how could the Senate exclude Burris in the theory that Blagojevich’s misdeeds have tainted Burris?
Before you take swipes at the Senate leadership, please explain how you would circumvent that . . . inconvenient Supreme Court precedent.
[i] Illinois Democrats had an opportunity to impeach Blagojevich and declined before this appointment was made [/i] —Katherine [#4]
A preposterous assertion. Impeachment is not like a parliamentary no-confidence vote. Under the Illinois Constitution (art. IV, § 14), impeachment is a “trial” and requires evidence. The usual standard is proof by “clear and convincing evidence. State senators must take an oath “to do justice [i]according to law[/i].”
The federal prosecutor has rightly resisted having the legislature take testimony from his witnesses before Blagojevich stands trial. He is willing to release partial wiretap transcripts of 4 Blago telephone conversations. But as of Dec. 29, the prosecutor [url=http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/2008/12/patrick-fitzgerald-willing-to-share.html]still needed court permission to release the transcripts[/url]. Nor would the transcripts alone necessarily work like a charm.
In any event, the legislature did not in fact have the opportunity to impeach Blagojevich before he appointed Burris.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
BTW, Eugene Volokh believes that, in light of the Adam Clayton Powell case [#7], “the Senate may determine whether the Senator should be seated solely based on the objective qualifications that the Constitution prescribes, and not based on its judgment whether Gov. Blagojevich ought to be entitled to make the appointment.”
PS to #8: The relevant Illinois House committee is evidently planning to launch impeachment hearings based on misconduct not involving the vacant Senate seat. That will avoid reliance on current federal witnesses but make for a legally and factually hazier case.
In my opinion, Obama’s failure to support a special election (as desired my the overwhleming majority of people in Illinois) was a mis-step.
Instead of standing up for principle and the popular will, he was worried about defending the interests of the Democratic machine in Illinois. Not promising.
The veil is lifted on Chicago politics. Curious how Obama has come through all this unscathed…..one wonders….
bl
Austin [#10]: How exactly would you have compelled a special election?
Illinois law authorized Blagojevich to fill the Senate vacancy. He could do so at any time. Changing state law to require a special election would not apply retroactively to Burris.
Okay, Irenaeus, I withdraw the impeachment comment. It was based upon news reports that the Illinois legislature had attempted it but didn’t have the votes. I also don’t know the Illinois law on calling a special election; it does seem that would be outside the current law.
But none of this exonerates the U.S. Senate leadership. Burris has been properly appointed by a sitting Governor. The Illinois Sec. State improperly refused to certify the appointment, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate improperly refused to seat him, given the Clayton Powell decision. As I check news reports early this morning my time, it appears that Reid is folding and will accept Burris. An embarrassing episode with which to begin a new Congress. Illinois Democrats need new leadership, and perhaps so do federal Senate Democrats.
Katherine [#14]: Burris does not yet have the requisite certification from the Illinois secretary of state. Until he does, the Senate can properly refuse to seat him.
Can you tell me, Irenaeus, why this appointment is so offensive to Democrats, other than the fact that it was made by Blagojevich, who should have resigned? I am asking a serious question. The Illinois Democrat brand is badly soiled by this scandal. Questions have swirled about who was willing to pay for the Senate seat, and there are also the depths of the Rezko situation yet to be plumbed. It seems to me that a weak caretaker Senator who can be replaced in 2010 by a stronger candidate from a renewed party should be to the benefit of the party. Burris should be fairly easy to defeat in a Democratic primary. Isn’t it possible that Blagojevich has inadvertently done the party a favor?
#15, then that puts the impropriety squarely back on Illinois Democrats, which is where my comment began, although it was misdirected, as you pointed out.
“No one disputes that Blagojevich is still governor and that Illinois law empowers the governor to fill Senate vacancies. No one is accusing Burris of misconduct. Although the Constitution makes the Senate “the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,†this power has limits. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that the House could not exclude Adam Clayton for misappropriating government funds.”
I don’t understand — and never have — why the HoR couldn’t and didn’t ignore this 1987 SC decision, a decision for which, I believe, there was no previous precedent. The Constitution no more gives the judicial branch coercive authority over the legislative and executive branches, than it gives one and the other authority over it; in fact, the enforcement of any court decisions rests implicitly on the willingness of one or another of the other branches, usually the executive, to enforce it. Had the HoR ignored the 1987 decision, what could the SC have done about it, save for trying to get another branch to enforce it? If, however, the Congress wished to “clothe the nakedness” of the SC so as to keep its usurped authority from suffering such discredit and disgrace as so open a repudiation would bring upon it, why didn’t they do what the Constitution allows them to do, pass a law declaring that the judicial system has no jurisdiction over the determination of suitability for membership in the House or Senate, but only each house respectively for its own membership? That was certainly the operative assumption from 1789 onwards, and one completely in accord with prior Parliamentary practice in England.
My own suspicion is that the refusal to undertake such a vindication of the historic rights of the Congressional houses is but one manifestation of that “buck passing” that has become so conspicuous a feature of American government at all levels since the 1960s, if not earlier. Another instance might be those Congressional resolutions allowing the president to wage war without any declaration of war, as in Korea in 1950, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1965, the two Iraq wars and thew war in Afghanistan (and thus, arguably, a clear breach of the Constitution, as these wars were neither actions to quell domestic revolts or disturbances, nor undertaken to repulse foreign invasions or incursions). Congress “authorizes” the president to make war, but then, if the war becomes unpopular, Congressmen can claim “we wuz conned” and then turn and oppose the war (and the president) whom they had earlier supported and enabled. All this seems to reflect the degeneracy of the American constitutional tradition, in which the courts simultaneously invent new rights (absolute privacy, right to contracept, to abort and now to contract sodomitical “marriages”) and aggrandize their own power as our “philosopher kings” — unfortunately for us, the philosophy they follow is that of the sophists or nihilists — while at the same time facilitating the growth of the “nanny state” and allowing checks and balances to fall into desuetude, and real constitutional rights to be attenuated.
As a conservative, it seems to me that Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty — and under law gets to appoint the Senate replacement. Those just appear to be the facts.
The fact that Burris would be appointed by someone who appears to be a solid, corrupt criminal is neither here nor there, other than that it supplies a nice dash of further corruption to the ruling liberal majority in the Senate, which I don’t mind a bit.
Katherine, it is one thing to be innocent under the law, another to be innocent in fact. Being neither a seated Judge nor Juror overseeing a trial on the matter, as a citizen I don’t feel a need to limit myself to courtroom testimony and evidence.
#3, I don’t think Ronald Burris himself feels he’s is in any way getting a bad deal by accepting and pursuing the appointment. He knows the score and is looking to catch as catch can with this opportunity.
Logically, no one should castigate Burris or hold him to blame for his appointer’s foibles. On the other hand, morally, I think this business ranks with dirt or something lower. Blagojevich’s actions and the Senate’s acceptance of whatever he does goes to further taint that institution. How the Senate’s action or inaction reflect on them or the country is worth pondering. Dr. Tighe presents a pretty interesting perspective on what we as a people are willing to accept for “leadership.”
I meant to respond to Sarah and not Katherine in post 20. Please accept my apologies for the confusion.
I agree with everything Dr. Tighe has said in #18, but I can’t tell you how much it galls me to have a Brit rip our government like he has done, even when what he says is true.
Re: #22,
You mistake me; I was born and bred in Lowell, Massachusetts.