Can Senate Dems block Burris?

russell fox Wells, Maine — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:45:35 GMT

first im and independent and have no loyalty to parties.....I think the democrats are looking for a power play so they can really have the majority party...Then were back to politics as usual you support me and i support you only we democrats will have the final say.....It comes down to washington as usual, few new player, but overall the same do nothing congress with some looking for support for there election next year.....right now there objection is to just give your money away with no accountabiliy while they try to make themselves look like there doing something for the american people....I think the situation in this country should be reversed, they should be getting layed off instead of the working american who only wants to do the best for his family....Fat chance unless we see change and im holding president elect Obama to his promise....So far im nervous, and get the feeling that pork and etc will till be there in order to get votes for bills....Hopefully im wrong......will see.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Anna Molly — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:53:03 GMT

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Mike Groshong, McMinnville, Or — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:56:39 GMT

So this is business as usual for the Congress? Is this another example of loud speech and no action? Is this a harbinger of how the new Congress will act in the coming year?

We made changes in the executive branch. What do we need to do to light a fire under the legislative? branch.

Simply put: I am disgusted. The slip of the lip between word and action by the US Congress will sink the ship of state.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:56:43 GMT

This story is getting a bit old. Who cares. If he still wants to take it let Burris take the position and let's move on. If the people of Illinois don't want Burris in there then they should be the ones to remove him. The Senate should just let it go and leave it up to the people of Illinois, and the media needs to report on more important and serious issues rather than this crap.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Indie Woman in Denver — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:57:40 GMT

I think they should seat Burris until such time as the state of IL either approves or nullifies the appointment. Ya gotta wonder about Blago's motives in picking Burris, and Burris' motives in allowing himself to be used in this way.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

justwaitandsee — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:04:04 GMT

I hope they do what ever they can to block this snake from taking office. This man just wants to add on to his exaggerated resume and tombstone.

Does this man honestly believe he would garner up any true respect from congress; the democrats will despise him and republicans will laugh at him; he will be the black version of Joe Liebermann; does it he actually believe he will be looked at more than an opportunist who was selected by a corrupted governor; does this man get it that this is a testimony of his character?

I don’t think he does get it and maybe that’s why the corrupt governor choose him; they are two people of the same mine who live in their own world; the people would have never chosen you, not now not ever. You have run for higher office several times and have been rejected each and every time and now you think you deserve to be Senator because the “CORRUPT” Governor says you have the qualification to be so.

Memo to the Delusional Burris, our next President “OBAMA” doesn’t believe you are qualified to be Senator and would have never chosen you.

Memo to the Delusional Burris, Chicago Voters don’t want or need you as their Senator

Burris Tombstone will say one thing but History will say the truth:

Roland Burris accepted the appointment of Barack Obama America’s FIRST BLACK President’s, old Senate Seat from the Corrupt Governor of Chicago not because the people of Chicago wanted him not because the process was clean but Burris is an opportunist with a mediocre political career who tried to use the race card to bully his way through.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

think about it — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:05:35 GMT

if we can have pre-emptive war why not pre-emptive government.....

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Triad Hope — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:06:49 GMT

Can the Dems block Burris? Sure. Just tell the guards not to let the black guy in. Should of done that four years ago too.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Indie Woman in Denver — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:08:42 GMT

As another independent, I agree with Russell from Maine. BOTH parties seem to love to play their political games. Hopefully, Obama will be able to steer things in a different direction. It's not gonna happen overnight, and it's not gonna be easy, but I have very high hopes for the young man from Hawaii.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:09:47 GMT

The fact that Burris, no matter how clean, would take this position shows that he isn't fully aware of what is going on and all of the implications. I would like to see Burris taken aside by Reid and Durbin where they would explain what is going on and how much they would like to seat him; there is just the problem with who sent him to the Senate. I would hope that Burris understands that and can be appointed by the next governor.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

TKD — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:11:05 GMT

Referring the matter to a committee for "investigation" is an admission by Reid & Co. that they do not have the legal authority to block Burris. If they did, they would simply vote to block him, and that would be that. Instead, they will stall and try to delay seating him.

Also, what kind of credibility would the "investigation" have, when Reid & Co. have already vehemently denounced the appointment and vowed to block it? They have already fatally tainted any such investigation.

And lastly, how would the subsequent removal of Blagojevich cancel the Burris appointment? When a governor leaves office, his prior acts are not cancelled. If he is removed, and a new governor names a different senator, it's far from clear that the new appointment prevails over the previous one. Burris could well be seated anyhow, on the grounds that after he was duly appointed by Blagojevich, there is no vacancy left to fill.

Reid's vow to block anyone appointed by Blagojevich goes outside the law and the constitution -- it's really on the order of a bill of attainder, which is a legislative enactment declaring someone guilty of a crime, without any judicial process. The constitution specifically prohibits that.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

PBrown — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:13:40 GMT

The question isn't CAN they do it, it's SHOULD they do it. Give me one reason why the Senate should act to block the appointment of a qualified candidate by a governor who hasn't yet been convicted of anything and thereby deprive themselves of a very needed vote as they try to implement the Obama agenda and the republicans try to block it.

Oh, yeah. Same old, same old.

p.s. -- a great big New Year's wish for C A, and many thanks for the lovely Christmas message. I heard you loud and clear, C A. Some things never change. May 2009 bring you all the blessings and love that YOU deserve.
****************************

How he is qualified and if so why haven't the people of Chicago ever selected him for higher office; and if you believe the voting process was unfair to him because of his race then please explain Senator Obama and now President Obama; and if he is highly respected why wasn't he on anyone short list including our new Presidnet.

Answer because NO ONE WANTED HIM.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:16:08 GMT

Anna Molly:

Glad you saw the Christmas note Anna Molly. This site is so erratic and inconsistent I was afraid you may have missed it.

Thanks for the New Year wish. I saw a list that someone sent to others wishing that many good things happened to them in 2009 and noted that each of the things mentioned would have to be initiated by an outside source. In other words, wishing the person happiness was dependent on an outside source or event. I replied back and said thanks for the wishes, but wanted to remind the sender that it was our own attitudes thatwould determine how good a new year we all had. That no matter the circumstances surrounding us or how others treated us (even our significant others) only we could determine if we were going to be happy or not. So my wish to everyone in 2009, and you, is that each finds that serenity within themselves. For no matter what direction any forces outside of us take, we can be happy in 2009 if we choose too.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

OLR333 [Chicago, IL] — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:24:50 GMT

Block Burris? Suspend the Constitution? On what grounds? What if Blago is tried and not found guilty? Oh, please, president-elect Obama, let's start off on a better foot. This is sounding creepier by the minute.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

cindy, Las Vegas, Nv — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:27:14 GMT

I wonder how the people of Ill. feel about Mr Burris taking senate seat?? He does seem like a good man. I also wonder why, when he ran against Blago for Gov did he lose? I say if the people of Ill. want a special election, then let them have it. Remember "We the People"!!

Yes we did!!!!!!!!!!!

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Mike Thorsby, New Bern, NC — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:27:21 GMT

This is easy; suspend the appointment until a complete investigation is done on the Governor.
If the Governor is guilty punish him! Then let the people have a special election fot that seat.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Joe — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:33:44 GMT

If he is a "qualified candidate," he meets a very low bar. As to needing the vote, if major change rises and falls on this guy, someone who will give the Republicans a decent chance in 2010 when the seat is open again, they are in trouble.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

k ann b — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:36:07 GMT

As a democrat I'm so tired of Democrats in Congress trying to show their brass at all the wrong times. The current administration has been in need of serious oversight for the last 7, if not 8 years and Democrats failed to provide it at every turn. Now all of a sudden they're at the door showing brass. Over Burris? Give me a break. It accentuates their lack of an agenda, and frankly it accentuates their weakness.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Ahmad - Stockton, California — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:36:57 GMT

i just emailed my attorney to ask about the legality of denying burris a seat; thanks for this report; it really cleared things up for me :)

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Mark — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:43:09 GMT

It is a Constitutional questions that should go immediately to the Supreme Court for review and a finding. It is not something that the Supreme Court can bounce back to a lower court or to the Legislative branch. It is a strict Constitutional question that should be answered so we can get this out of the way for any future challenges.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Kevin, Portland, ME — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:48:47 GMT

The Democratically controlled Senate leadership is out of their minds if they try not to seat Mr. Burris. He was appointed as required by the State of Illinois to complete the term of President-elect Obama. There appears to be nothing in Mr. Burris' background that would preclude his qualifications for the office. There was nothing improper in the appointment.......now if Ms. Kennedy were to be nominated and seated without question with her scant qualifications, then we would really know how the old blue blood of the senate practices racial equality.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

GG — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:07:59 GMT

Understanding that everything that has been revealed abt Blago looks horrible, nonetheless, he hasn't been convicted of anything as yet. Therefore technically, there is no 'taint' [speaking from a purely legal perspective] & he should be seeted as a Governor's appointed choice. That all of this is swirlng around is just so typical of the Democrats. Every time you put them in charge, they always seem to reflect a group that couldn't organize a 2 car funeral. Heaven help us! It's one of the many reasons why I am an independent.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Scott, Sane in Wisconsin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:09:56 GMT

Can someone explain why MR. Burris, a man of sterling reputation, has allowed himself to be dragged into this mess? Why would he act as a cat's paw for an obviously ethically challenged politician like Blago? I don't blame Senate Dems for refusing to seat him. They should not do so unless he agrees to leave office if Blago is impeached. Remember, the "selling of the senate seat" business is merely the tip of a sleezy iceberg according to the tapes. Blago appears to be a real piece of work! Shameless conservitive windbags will try to take advantage of this, of course. Obama will float above it all!

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Anne, Ashland, OR — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:11:46 GMT

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. Instead of waiting to see how the situation played out, Reid made a grand statement, and now feels compelled to "stick to his guns." It doesn't make sense to refuse Burris the seat. His credentials are impeccable, he is experienced, and he would serve Illinois well. Now that the race card has been played, Democrats are in a no win situation. It's too bad. Knee jerk, partisan responses are not the "change" we have asked for.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

DR R Cumberbatch — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:38:27 GMT

History repeating itself. If the country going to hell in a hand basket. the Democratic leadership is shooting themselves in th foot again-- ignoring the critical issues facing the world for self gratification and thw wrong causes.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

DR R Cumberbatch, Murfreesboro TN — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:39:59 GMT

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:40:52 GMT

russell fox Wells, Maine:

I am watching closely too Russell:

I do believe that Obama has good intentions and would like to see changes. The question is will he be able to do battle and overcome the entrenched self-serving, back-biting, congressional forces (both Republican and Dem). I have no faith in Congress, none whatsoever, regardless of party. Their history is to do all they can to outmaneneuver one another rather than do what is right for the Americna people. I realize they are human and have their own opinions about policy. But they have been elected to do the will of the majority of the people.

I see there is a report that many Republicans are leaving DC for the inaugeration. Their focus is not on congratulating or at least recognizing Obama for becoming President, and then seeing what they can do to work with him and to meet the challenges facing this country. Their focus is on rejecting or ignoring Obama and what they can do in the next four years to win back the Presidency. They are sickening. And the majority of Dems are no different.

Any Republican who stays in town for the innaugeration, congratulates Obama, and then says we have our differences but now let's get to work, will have my respect. Those who don't should be voted out of office.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

clueless in colorado — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:47:30 GMT

I agree with Anna Molly. The question is not "can they do it, but should they do it?" And that is where we part ways. I say there is no hurry. We aren't seating a fll Senate next Tuesday anyway, so what is the hurry. We need to fill Biden's seat and Clintons seat, and Salazars seats. And they han't even formally resigned yet, yet alone a pick made. Coleman/Franken will not be settled for weeks yet. Slow it down. Get it right. The absolute rush mentality is what got a bailout with no oversight and ever shifting ever changing rules. Lets let the system work. So what if it takes a few weeks. If Burris is seated after the courts decide he ahs the right to be seated, so be it. The question is, with the scandal Blago had regarding trying to sell this very position, does he have the moral authority to seat a senator who will be ineffective because of the taint? Don't the people of Illinois deserve better? Don't all of us? Let's put it this way. In high school you had a teacher who always gave her pets an A. No one else got A's, just her pets. Then one day she reads your paper and is so moved by it, that for once she does the right thing and gives you the A you deserve. What do you suppose the rest of the class thinks? That is the real point. Perception is everything. Burris may indeed be clean, but perception is eh is tainted by this pick, and he will be ineffective because of it. I think Burris should do one of tow things. Either refuse the appointment, or abide by the time it will take to let the courts do what they do. while waiting he should stay out of the limelight, and work behind the scenes. This has become a circus, and Burris is becomeing one of the clowns.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

cindy, Las Vegas, Nv — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:03:34 GMT

Ditto to Scott, Wisconsin. Sure would like to hear from the people of ILL. Thanks,c

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

no comment — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:03:46 GMT

i read the slate article and found it to be stunningly amateurish in its analysis. on one hand, the article concedes that powell limits congressional power to exclude members to those qualifications explicitly listed in the constitution. in the case of a senator, those qualifications are: a)at least 30 years of age; b)a citizen for at least 9 years; and c)a resident of the state at the time of appointment. burris meets all of those qualifications, so under powell, its end of the discussion.

however, somehow amar and chafetz conclude that the senate can do more, notwithstanding powell. they assert that the senate can exclude burris based on a "good faith" belief that the process was improper. they provide no support for what is little more than an "it seems to me" analysis.

what amar and chafetz are really getting at with their "good faith" theory are matters of constitutional violations of the due process rights of citizens. a corrupt selection process by the governor is a violation of the due process rights of the citizens and is therefore unconstitutional. however, constitutional due process issues are for courts to decide, not the congress.

reid is playing a card game in which blagojevich is holding all the cards. the cards that reid holds are senate rules. on the other hand, the cards that blagojevich holds are: a)the 10th amendment (which reserves powers to the states that aren't explicitly granted to the federal government - in this case the selection of congressmen); b)the 17th amendment (which grants the executive of the state the right to appoint a replacement if the legislature of the states so provides - in illinois it does); and c)powell v. maccormick (which limits the extent to which the congress can act as election judges).

so blagojevich can go before a judge with his constitutional cards and reid with his senate rules cards. do you really think that a judge is going to have a difficult time trying to figure out who's hand is going to win out? yet, amar and chafetz assert (without support) that a judge would not rule in favor of blagojevich's right to select burris. keep in mind that the senate does have a right to expel a member.

this brings me to my last point. i think that amar and chafetz completely butchered the interpretation of what expulsion is all about. they assert that an attempt by burris to assert his rights under the constitution could be used as a grounds for expulsion by the senate. this is simply not credible.

the basis for expulsion as set forth in the constitution is that it is to result from misconduct by a member. no reasonable construction of "misconduct" could lead to the conclusion that it includes attempts to assert one's rights under the constitution. in fact, to support an attempt expel burris, reid and company would have to make a direct allegation that burris is a suspected crook. it's not enough to just assert that blagojevich is discredited - they are going have to say that burris himself was engaged in some form of corruption or impropriety in connection with this appointment.

my prediction is that if reid were to make such an accusation against burris, this thing will get very ugly and the whole thing will blow up in his face. furthermore, i suspect that if reid went there, he would lose both obama and senior illinois senator dick durbin. in the end, reid would end up wishing that he had just quietly seated burris, which is what i suspect is going to end up happening.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

no comment — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:13:13 GMT

to tkd, you are correct in that burris was legally appointed and the senate seat is now no longer vacant. for a subsequent governor to appoint a replacement would effectively require a recall of burris and replacement with a new appointee. however, the constitution has no provision for congressional recall. the only means by which a congressman's term may be ended early is expulsion. however, to expel, the senate is going to have to come up with some grounds to establish that burris himself is corrupt and that corruption was operative in getting him the senate seat.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

power forward, Seattle, WA — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:30:35 GMT

As others have said, if there is no corruption surrounding this particular appointment, and it was done lawfully, then what are the Senate's grounds for refusing to seat Burris? Following that logic--I don't understand the proposal that the Senate can delay with an investigation and hope that Blago is impeached in the meantime. What if he is? Why would that retroactively undo his lawful appointment of the Senator prior to the impeachment?

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Barbara, Raleigh NC — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:12:41 GMT

Fruit of the poison tree?

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Laura, Boston (home of Harvard) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:02:54 GMT

Fellow bloggers:

Let me ask you all a question. What if you were charged with a crime and knew you were innocent. Your job was suspended without pay and the bills kept coming in. Would you want people to believe you and try as hard as you could to make them believe you.

I am not saying Blago is innocent but for now he is not guilty. He has been accused period! Fitzgerald has asked for more time to prove his case (until April) and the state legislation hasn't done anything to remove Blago from office. So he is doing what any governor is supposed to do (i.e. Gov. Patterson, Gov. of Delaware, Gov. of CO). They are supposed to appoint a successor who is qualified to take the place of the Senator who is leaving. That Senator doesn't tell the governor who to pick. They went on and resigned. Do you think if you resigned from your job that it would be your right to pick your successor. NO! It would be your bosses. Right now (at least) Blago is the boss of the state of IL and he has every right and it is his duty to appoint someone.

Ask Laurence Tribe, law professor of Harvard and teacher to Obama. He feels the Senate doesn't have the authority to stop Mr. Burris.

Can Senate Dems block Burris?

Dan Larkin, Merion Station PA — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:21:35 GMT

[Resubmitted because I failed to give my city and state the first time]

The holding in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) seems unequivocal in limiting the exclusionary power of either house to determining whether the person seeking admittance meets the "standing qualifications" set forth in Art. I, §2, of the Constitution ("No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen".
Here is a full quotation from the Conclusion of the opinion (a model of judicial analysis, in my view) written for the Court by Chief Justice Warren (only Justice Stewart dissented):
"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. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership".
The Court's opinion examines in detail the history of Article I, Section 5: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide".
A fair and attentive reading of Powell shows that after a probing analysis of historical precedent (from English and American law; from pre-1787 and post-1787 American sources) and textual meaning, the Court, with only Justice Stewart dissenting, wrote a clear and well-reasoned opinion that precludes any constitutional basis for barring Roland Burris from taking his seat and being recognized as in every respect a United States senator from Illinois.
It would be an unpleasant irony, as the first African American president of the United States takes office, were the Senate to seek to exclude a man who would be the only black member of the body, in defiance of a Supreme Court holding issued to bar the exclusion of a nationally known black Congressman from Harlem.