Roland Burris Blocked from Senate

[LowlyPion]

I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this. Burris has met the statutory requirements for office and I think in their fit of pique they are making a blunder that will not be sustained under law. And if it should be sustained, then I think they are making a troubling precedent.

Democrat Roland Burris blocked from Senate
Tue Jan 6, 2009 11:39am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The man named by the scandal-plagued governor of Illinois to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate failed to gain entry on Tuesday when the chamber's secretary rejected as incomplete his credentials for the seat.

Roland Burris, a Democrat appointed to the seat by fellow Democrat Rod Blagojevich, said afterward, "I am not seeking to have any type of confrontation. I will now consult with my attorneys and we will determine what my next step will be."

Blagojevich was arrested last month on charges he tried to sell the seat that Obama vacated after his November 4 election win, charges the governor has denied. When Blagojevich later named Burris to fill the seat in the Democrat-controlled Senate, the move immediately hit obstacles.

The secretary of state in Illinois has refused to certify Blagojevich's appointment of Burris. Senate rules say such certification is needed.

Burris has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for a speedy decision on his request that the secretary of state be required to sign the certificate. He contends his appointment is legal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5054V420090106

 

[NeoDevin]

I would tend to agree with you, provided their is a provision to revoke his seat should it be found that he obtained it illegally. If there is no such provision in the law, I would have to side with the secretary, at least until the trial is over.

 

[Danger]

Since I'm not a Yank, I have no right to express an opinion regarding this matter... but that's never stopped me before.
Even if they let the guy in, who would take him seriously? He's tainted by the corruption of the one who appointed him. That's not to say that there's anything dishonest about him, but one can't avoid the association. I think, though, that if he was truly above-board, he would have declined the appointment.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a similar situation to Al Franken's. There is no clear certification from the State. I don't expect them to seat Burris or Franken.

If the Illinois SC forces the Secretary to certify the appointment then I think they will seat him.

Burris is a self promoter as is obvious from his willingness to accept the tainted appointment just so he can add Senator to his legacy.

The man talks about himself in the third person. I think that Burris is someone who is more concerned about the character he is creating than the character of the creator, ie himself.

I found it very refreshing to hear Barack and Michelle talk about the difference between "Barack" the President elect, and Barack the person during an interview.

 

[LowlyPion]

I would tend to agree with you, provided their is a provision to revoke his seat should it be found that he obtained it illegally. If there is no such provision in the law, I would have to side with the secretary, at least until the trial is over.

There is always a provision to strip a Senator for ethics violations and presumably, if he actually paid money for the job, or behaved disreputably in making any deal, then I'd say that qualifies under current Senate Ethics rules.

As far as the Illinois Secretary is concerned, I'd say his actions are directly impeachable, ipso facto.

Blagojevich has not been convicted. He has the authority until such time that he doesn't - presumably after the conclusion of a successful impeachment. The appointment is directly supported under the law. I just don't see why the Democrats are giving themselves a wedgie over the issue.

The Democrats in Congress should really have side-stepped the issue and thrown it back to Illinois, making them resolve the Secretary's signature, if that is what's required, indicating that with that signature they would recognize him. Harry Reid I think has blundered out onto thin ice. I hope he has his water wings on.

 

[LowlyPion]

Since I'm not a Yank, I have no right to express an opinion regarding this matter... but that's never stopped me before.
Even if they let the guy in, who would take him seriously? He's tainted by the corruption of the one who appointed him. That's not to say that there's anything dishonest about him, but one can't avoid the association. I think, though, that if he was truly above-board, he would have declined the appointment.

Being a scoundrel has not uniformly disqualified people from holding the office of Senator. History is replete with examples. But besides that, I don't see that Burris is anything but an opportunist - that there but for the opportunity of being selected as a down-the-list choice he would never have hoped to go. It's only for 2 years. I just don't see the big problem that it's made into.

Besides, given the inexorable likelihood that he will be seated, I'd say that if the Democratic leadership were more politically savvy they would support him in the hopes that they could work with him cooperatively after confirmation, and leave the Illinois State politicians to play the heavies as they Keystone Cop around with their impeachment efforts.

 

[NeoDevin]

There is always a provision to strip a Senator for ethics violations and presumably, if he actually paid money for the job, or behaved disreputably in making any deal, then I'd say that qualifies under current Senate Ethics rules.

Sounds good, give him the seat.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this. Burris has met the statutory requirements for office ...

According to the US Constitution, the Senate itself is the judge of whether a Senator is to be seated.

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

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5"
In the language of that day, a 'return' is a report of an appointment.

 

[LowlyPion]

According to the US Constitution, the Senate itself is the judge of whether a Senator is to be seated.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5"
In the language of that day, a 'return' is a report of an appointment.

I grant you that they are the Judge of the qualifications, but I think that in the final analysis there is nothing wrong with Roland Burris as to his personal qualifications and while the wayward Governor may indeed have tried to hijack the process for his own personal profit at one point, there is no suggestion that this is the case with this appointment at this time.

As I mentioned earlier I think that if there is some quid pro quo with this specific selection, then of course I would see the Senate as being obligated within its authority to rule his selection voided. But failing that I think their action today looks unnecessarily arbitrary and peevish.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a similar situation to Al Franken's. There is no clear certification from the State. I don't expect them to seat Burris or Franken.

Actually, it's not similar: in the Al Frankin case, there is an ongoing court case that legally blocks the seating (or will be - there is a 7 day time limit to file). In the Burris case, there is no such legal action taking place. I didn't even know until I heard it on the radio yesterday that gov B hasn't even been indicted yet.

So I think perhaps that the letter of the law would be that Burris should be seated. However, I agree with many who say that he shouldn't be because he's tainted. Either way, if he's personally tainted (as opposed to just by association), he can be removed in a parallel legal process with gov B.

Burris is a self promoter as is obvious from his willingness to accept the tainted appointment just so he can add Senator to his legacy.

The man talks about himself in the third person. I think that Burris is someone who is more concerned about the character he is creating than the character of the creator, ie himself.

It's a little pathetic and shamefl, yes.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is similar is that neither one of them has been certified by their States. Lacking that certification the Senate will not seat them.

 

[LowlyPion]

What is similar is that neither one of them has been certified by their States. Lacking that certification the Senate will not seat them.

They are also similar in that both are also likely to ultimately be seated.

 

[LowlyPion]

For Roland Burris it seems that it is fait accompli. The Senate blinked.

Democrats' opposition to Burris begins to crack
By LAURIE KELLMAN and ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer

Jan 6th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Roland Burris failed to capture President-elect Barack Obama's old Senate seat Tuesday in a wild piece of political theater, but the Democrats' opposition cracked when a key chairwoman said seating him was simply the legal thing to do. Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejected the reasoning that all of the chamber's Democrats, herself included, had cited in a letter last week -- that corruption charges against Burris' patron, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, tainted his appointment.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2009/01/06/D95HV0K80_senate_burris/

 

[turbo]

When Burris was AG and running for governor, he refused to allow his prosecutors to exonerate a death-row prisoner or allow a new trial, despite the fact that another man had already admitted to the crime. In fact, he pushed for the death penalty for an innocent man, forcing his assistant AG to resign rather than comply. Not that this would disqualify him in any way from serving in Congress.

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

He needs the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State. Its a state matter. Until Illinois has settled its issues congress should not allow Burris to take his seat. Its as simple as that.

 

[signerror]

Why, is he behind on his payments?

 

[signerror]

On the subject of Congress and the suspicion of corruption. Two years ago, the FBI videotaped Rep. William Jefferson accept a briefcase full of cash, then wrap it in aluminum foil and hide in his Congressional refrigerator. He was never impeached by the House, was reelected, served out another full term (which ended last week), and has yet to face trial (supposedly that starts this Jan. 15th, on 16 counts of corruption).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson

I think this puts Burris in context. Will the Senate cave in and seat him without a fuss? I expect so.

 

[LowlyPion]

He needs the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State. Its a state matter. Until Illinois has settled its issues congress should not allow Burris to take his seat. Its as simple as that.

Actually it's not exactly a State matter. I agree that the Senate should have ducked the issue and asked the State to resolve it, but the "recommended" form for the Appointment seemingly only relies on the Governor's signature:

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.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule02.php

According to the sample "recommended" form in Rule II the Secretary of State of Illinois is merely that of a witness. So long as the Governor's signature is bona fide I'd say that the sense of the document indicates that the Governor's signature is sufficient.

I can see where the Secretary of State's signature is of greater importance insofar as on the sample Certificate of Election is concerned as the SoS may also be seen in their official capacity as certifying the vote.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can see where the Secretary of State's signature is of greater importance insofar as on the sample Certificate of Election is concerned as the SoS may also be seen in their official capacity as certifying the vote.

That's just it. The secretary of state seems to feel that this appointment oughtn't go through. Should the senate not honour that?
I certainly don't have the whole story. Has the secretary not made any statement? Did Blagojevich and Burris not speak with him? It seems like the gov just wants to push his candidate through. He seems rather megolomanical. Like he just wants to show that he still has the power to do what they don't want him to...

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/jesse-white-ive-been-made-the-fall-guy.html

Well apparently the SoS says he doesn't mind if Burris is seated. I don't know. I think he is dodging. If he thinks Burris ought to be seated I don't see why he doesn't want to sign off on it. The bullet has been deflected his way and he seems to want to avoid it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is extremely complicated politically.

Plan A was for the Illinois legislature to remove the governor's ability to appoint a replacement and call a special election instead. The problem with this is that polls showed a voter preference for an unnamed Republican over an unnamed Democrat. So the leadership in both houses scrapped that idea.

What the Illinois democrats wanted was a person who would have a good chance of winning the election to that seat in 2010. That person is not Roland Burris, who is 71, and has campaigned unsuccessfully for that seat before.

One might think Powell v. McCormick provides a strong precedent to seat Mr. Burris, but I am not so sure - there is a difference between the House, where you have a completely new body constituted every two years and the Senate where you don't.

 

[mheslep]

According to the US Constitution, the Senate itself is the judge of whether a Senator is to be seated.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5"
In the language of that day, a 'return' is a report of an appointment.

Not exactly, the Senate's power to deny a seat is limited. This came up in 20th century Supreme Court case. The court looked at the constitution's "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" phrasing and decided that the Senate's power to deny seating is not without bounds; that it is limited to only those requirements specifically articulated in the constitution. There is no constitutional restriction that the governor making the appointment can not have attempted to sell the seat. Thus the Senate will have to seat Burris if he makes a makes a legal challenge. Then, if the Senate chooses, it can immediately expel him with a 2/3 vote, but that will be politically difficult.

The Case: Powell v. McCormack, 1969
http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./395/486/

107 Further, analysis of the 'textual commitment' under Art. I, § 5 (see Part VI, B (1)), has demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these.

 

[LowlyPion]

That's just it. The secretary of state seems to feel that this appointment oughtn't go through. Should the senate not honour that?

On this narrow issue, no. The Secretary of State of Illinois has no statutory veto over the selection made by the Governor. I don't see how the Senate should consider his feelings about the appointment since the choice is not his to make. The power of appointment is solely the Governor's. The signature of the Secretary of State looks to be perfunctorily as witness. I'd say that Jesse White's refusal to sign may, depending on the wording of his defined duties in Illinois Statutes, be in itself impeachable. For instance I'd think to remove him from office for not fulfilling his duties is likely why he's dodging any fire directed his way.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

On this narrow issue, no. The Secretary of State of Illinois has no statutory veto over the selection made by the Governor. I don't see how the Senate should consider his feelings about the appointment since the choice is not his to make. The power of appointment is solely the Governor's. The signature of the Secretary of State looks to be perfunctorily as witness. I'd say that Jesse White's refusal to sign may, depending on the wording of his defined duties in Illinois Statutes, be in itself impeachable. For instance I'd think to remove him from office for not fulfilling his duties is likely why he's dodging any fire directed his way.

I'm not sure about Illinois specifically but the SoS in most states is in charge of elections. So having the SoS sign off on the replacement of another elected official would seem to have more significance to it than mere ceremony. Especially when we are talking about replacement of an elected official by a governor who is to be indicted for crimes specifically related to the replacement of the elected official.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm not sure about Illinois specifically but the SoS in most states is in charge of elections. So having the SoS sign off on the replacement of another elected official would seem to have more significance to it than mere ceremony. Especially when we are talking about replacement of an elected official by a governor who is to be indicted for crimes specifically related to the replacement of the elected official.

The only election involved with Burris is the election of 1 - the Governor. But more specifically it is an appointment and not an election and I rather think doesn't come under the umbra of the duties of the Secretary of State to do anything but witness and certify the signature. Reserving his signature because he might think the Governor is tainted is not exactly compelling. Because unfortunately, while the Governor has been arrested he has not been convicted or possibly even indicted. He certainly has yet to be impeached and so retains his statutory powers, to in this case - appoint.

He has. And I rather expect that shortly Burris will be seated as Senator now that the Democrats in Congress have reversed themselves completely on Burris.

 

[Cyrus]

ahahaaaha, this guy refers to himself in the third person and named his kids: Rolanda and Roland II.


...wow.

 

[Danger]

When Burris was AG and running for governor, he refused to allow his prosecutors to exonerate a death-row prisoner or allow a new trial, despite the fact that another man had already admitted to the crime. In fact, he pushed for the death penalty for an innocent man, forcing his assistant AG to resign rather than comply.

In that case, he should be fried in his own fat.

 

[LowlyPion]

ahahaaaha, this guy refers to himself in the third person and named his kids: Rolanda and Roland II.


...wow.

If they disqualified politicians for being narcissists ...

 

[LowlyPion]

In that case, he should be fried in his own fat.

I think you need to be a little careful in associating Burris too closely with the Rolando Cruz case. Ultimately it was the courts that tried him twice and later upheld his conviction even despite the evidence of someone else's confession. It was only when DNA tests became available that Cruz was exonerated from what can only be described as being stupid.

Because stupid is what got him on death row in the first place. In trying to claim a reward he gave police information that they felt was close enough to unreleased facts about the case that it meant that he had been involved in the kidnap/murder of the 10 year old victim. Burris was not the prosecutor. Arguably Burris apparently did choose to ignore years later the memo of his staff about the case and do nothing as regards the appeal to the Illinois SC. An appeal that Cruz lost, when the SC chose to ignore the evidence, because they felt that if Cruz did not commit the crime he was present on the basis of his statements to police.

 

[turbo]

Because stupid is what got him on death row in the first place. In trying to claim a reward he gave police information that they felt was close enough to unreleased facts about the case that it meant that he had been involved in the kidnap/murder of the 10 year old victim.

That may not be an accurate accounting, according to Rob Warren, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177640/page/1

The conviction rested on dubious testimony by DuPage County authorities, who swore that Cruz had told them he had a dream about the crime, a dream that the prosecution said amounted to a confession. Cruz's jury accepted that, but eight months later, a serial killer named Brian Dugan confessed that he alone had committed the crime. Unlike Cruz's purported dream, Dugan's confession seemed iron-clad, rich in details that only the killer could have known.

As the trial approached in 1995, DNA technology had advanced sufficiently to link Dugan and Dugan alone to the crime. The trial nonetheless commenced, though it ended abruptly when a DuPage County sheriff's lieutenant admitted on the stand that officers who claimed to have informed him of the dream statement at the time Cruz supposedly made it in fact could not have informed him, because he was on vacation. An incredulous judge acquitted Cruz, removing him from legal jeopardy after 11 years, 34 weeks and four days behind bars for a crime he did not commit. In 2002, Cruz received a gubernatorial pardon based on innocence.