The Song of Roland Gets Sweeter

[howeird]

According to the Boston Globe, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled my reading of the Illinois Constitution was correct, and Roland Burris did not need his state's Secretary of State to sign anything for him to be legally appointed to the Senate. To make things even more interesting, the IL SoS went ahead and signed a letter affirming the appointment.

The Senate has no right to make up their own rules about who may or may not be a Senator. While the Senate is a Federal body, the elections and appointments to the Senate are strictly the right of the individual states. The only qualifications the Senate is allowed to bar a person for are not meeting the very short list in the US Constitution:

1. At least 25 years old
2. A Citizen of the United States for at least seven years
3. At the time of election, must be a legal resident of the state in which he has been chosen

That's the list. A sitting Senator may be expelled, but it takes a 2/3 majority vote to do so.

Comments

[jbrode.livejournal.com]

I think the idea they're going for is that the appointment itself was invalid; which, if he did in fact buy the seat, is a valid point. I'm not sure how exactly the constitution handles this sort of corruption, I guess they're just supposed to kick him out and appoint someone else.

[howeird]

The Supreme Court long ago (1960's) ruled that Congress has no right to bar someone who has been legally elected/appointed just because the person is corrupt. Adam Clayton Powell was just possibly the most openly corrupt member of Congress ever, and the House leadership kicked him out, and tried to bar him when he was re-elected. The Supes told Congress they had no right to do so, and forced them to seat him. The full case is here, if you care to read it. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=486

The Senate is, in effect, convicting the governor and Burris of a crime. It seems the concepts of due process and "innocent till proved guilty" are not Senate values.

[jbrode.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that the Senate should be allowed to convict Burris of a crime. As you say, innocent until proven guilty.

However, given that the circumstances of his appointment are at best dubious, one wonders exactly what they're supposed to do assuming that the Governor is, in fact, found guilty at the end of his impeachment. Would the appointment still be judged to be legal at that time?

[howeird]

The law assumes the governor has done no wrong, until he has had a trial and has been convicted.

One more time, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress, both House and Senate, are not allowed to bar someone from taking his seat for ANY REASON except being under 25, a citizen for less than 7 years, or not living in the state he is to represent at the time of the election/appointment.

Burris must be seated, no matter what anyone thinks about the circumstances of his appointment. The Governor is not being impeached, he merely has been charged with bribery, and so far there has been no evidence made public which supports that charge.

[jbrode.livejournal.com]

I'm aware. I'm just wondering what would happen in theory if he was convicted.

And actually yes, he has been impeached--as of yesterday, I believe. The trial obviously hasn't concluded, he was only impeached a day ago. I'm not sure if the trial's even begun yet.

[howeird]

You might want to find a dictionary of political terms. The only official in the United States who can be impeached is the President. It means The House of Representatives has decided the President may have committed a serious crime, and they have voted to have the Senate hold a trial to see if they think the President is guilty.

Governor Blagojevich has been indicted. Indicted only means charges have been filed. He has not had his day in court, he has not been convicted of anything, he is still Governor, and he still can legally do anything Illinois governors are allowed to do. And he is still presumed innocent.

Looking at the charges, they are pretty flimsy. And they were filed by the FBI, after 5 years of investigating him for various other things. It smacks of Bush Republican politics - until Jan. 20, Bush still pulls the strings on what high-profile politicians the FBI files charges against.

[howeird]

I guess they're just supposed to kick him out and appoint someone else.
Not quite. The Senate can kick him out with a 2/3 majority vote, but the Governor of Illinois makes the appointmnent to replace him. The Senate cannot appoint its own members.

[jbrode.livejournal.com]

I should have phrased that better. What I meant was that they would have to kick him out and, subsequently, someone else would be have to be appointed; obviously the Senate can't appoint its own members. That was poorly worded, my apologies.