Man Without a Seat

[howeird]

The Senate Democrats are refusing to seat Roland Burris from Illinois. They are both right and wrong in doing this. Section 5 of the Constitution gives the Senate the right to disqualify a member:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

But the only qualifications listed in the Constitution are these in Section 3:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The election/appointment to Congress is the role of the state, not the Federal government. If the appointee meets the above qualifications, which Burris does, the Senate has no grounds on which to deny him a seat. While the Governor of IL has been indicted and charged with attempting to sell this seat, he has not been convicted or impeached, he denies the charges and is still legally the governor, so he has the power to fill the vacancy. There is a space on the appointment certificate for the signature of the state's Secretary of State, and that space is blank -- but regardless of Senate rules, there is no requirement for anyone but the governor to approve the appointment, so using this argument is specious.

Where they are right is morally. Anyone who would accept an appointment which was strongly suspected of being for sale does not have the moral standards one would want in a senator. Burris is a cog in the Chicago Democratic machine, which also does not speak well of him. But if the Senate were to kick out every member who has some nebulous moral failing, they would never field a quorum.

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

You've got to break this down.

Elections, Returns and Qualifications are three different things.

The senate is judging that the election (in the general sense of the word) of Burris is invalid. The constitution doesn't set forth requirements or conditions for this judgement. It only sets requirements and conditions for judging the qualification of a Senator.

While rare, this is not new. The Senate has, in the past, overriden the appointment (or even election) of a Senator and itself picked the person who filled a disputed seat.

[howeird]

The Supes have ruled that disqualification can only be done on the basis of the qualifications specified in the Constitution. When I was in college, there was a smarmy congresscreature named Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who was basically the Marion Berry of the House. The House tried to disqualify him, but the Supreme Court ruled he was duly elected, and met all the qualifications set in the Constitution, and gave him his seat back. That was 1969. Except for today, I don't believe either the House or the Senate has tried that trick since.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

Ignore previous comment... you already made note of that.

[dprisoner.livejournal.com]

From the BBC News: "Illinois's secretary of state has so far refused to co-sign the letter of appointment from Mr Blagojevich, as required by Senate rules."

So at this point, Burris does not have the required credentials to be admitted as a member of congress - which is what he is currently be refused entry on.

[howeird]

As I said in my post, the Senate rules don't apply. They have no right to require any signature except the governor's. Next thing you know they will change the rules to require his mother's signature.

[dprisoner.livejournal.com]

Burris was "not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois". He did not have the required credentials from the state for the Senate to let him in. If it is not signed off by the Illinois Secretary of State, I guessing it's not valid. Otherwise, anyone could show up on swearing in day claiming it was their seat.

At this point it really wasn't within the power of the Senate to allow him (as much as it grieves them, I'm sure.) Much as Minnesota's Sec o' State hasn't signed off on Franken, pending his opponents lawsuit, so he won't be allowed in either (despite, as it seems, his winning the election...)

[howeird]

I'll say this one last time, because you don't seem to get it. The state of Illinois only requires the governor's signature.

Burris is taking this to court, and we'll see a Supreme Court ruling eventually which requires him to be seated.

The Franken case doesn't apply here because Burris is not the subject of an election dispute, he was legally appointed.

[howeird]

"everyone else" should be replaced by "everyone who hasn't bothered to actually READ the US and Illinios constitutions. Go read the relevent sections of both, and tell me from an intelligent point of view, not uninformed gut reaction, what supports your point of view.

Someone who agrees with me is KGO radio's Ron Owens. Have a listen:
http://www.kgoam810.com/sectional.asp?id=23585

[dprisoner.livejournal.com]

Actually it's not in the Illinois state constitution, it's in the state elections code. A technicality, which is what this mess is all about. Technically he should be admitted, and technically he shouldn't.

There is no provision in the code for the Secretary of State to certify the appointment, but without the appropriate "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed (aka, the SoS's signature and state seal) the US Senate can take issue with it. A bit archaic these days to rely on such a thing...

As for anyone on talk radio being a trusted source - I'd rather blow my brains out, thank you. Talk radio (both left, right and other) are a bunch of self serving rectal orifices and should only be taken as a source of entertainment and not for any actual knowledge. Same, really, for the so called news shows on cable - they all have their own agendas. News should be read, not editorialized. Everyone else is just out to grab ratings to justify their over-inflated salaries and egos.

Personally, I feel that once the Illinois Governor was arrested for trying to sell the seat (still an allegation at this point, I know) he should not have been allowed to make the appointment. It's like a school teacher being accused of statutory rape - they wouldn't be allowed back teaching until they were cleared (and even then, they probably wouldn't be allowed back...)