Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced his intention to appoint former state attorney general Roland Burris to Barack Obama's vacant seat in the U.S. Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has in the past announced his intention to refuse to seat any appointee that Blago submits.He has called for Blago to resign so the Lt. Governor could make the appointment . In no way does he want a special election because of the slim chance that a Repuiblican could win the seat. The Ill Legislature considered the option of a special election but has so far failed to provide for it.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago(former Black Panther ) was at the press conference and issues the following shot across the bow of Harry Reid and the Democrat Senate :
"I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer".
His theory is that the Obama Senate Seat is a "black seat" and should only be rewarded to a black pol. And it would be racist to deny that seat to a black candidate.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution says: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."
So in theory ,Reid has the power as the leader of the Senate to deny Burris the seat. But dare he now that the "r" word has been fired ?

As far as possible quid pro quos ; Burris has given more than $20,000 to Blago's campaign fund state campaign finance records show. Burris' consulting company received about $290,000 in state contracts with the Illinois Department of Transportation in return . The governor called Burris an individual of "unquestioned integrity, extensive experience"... and I'm sure in Blago's world he is. But if Burris has integrity, he should've turned down an appointment outright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution says: [I] "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."

---

Hello tom:

Not having studied the law, I understand that in the Adam Clayton Powell case, the Supreme Court said that the Senate can judge the "qualifications" of its members in terms of their eligibility to hold a senate seat according the "qualifications" in the Constitution... They DON'T have the power to exclude a senator just because they don't like him...

Plus, until Blago ISN'T the governor, he HAS the power to appoint. That's a LEGAL power. Therefore, this guy is going to be seated whether Harry Reid likes it or not. That's the law, and I think it's just fine.

Racism? Where do you get that?? Probably just trying to stir up some stuff..

excon

Ex
I have no doubt that a refusal to seat would probably be challenged in court;and most probably SCOTUS would reverse the Senate vote .

Reid's actual words :
"Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois, and, as we have said, will not be seated by the democratic caucus."

I'm sure the intent of the founders was to challenge and guard against tainted elections or a tainted candidate . Neither of these apply .

I'm hoping it plays out that way however ,with a Senate refusal to seat followed by a court reversal... prolong the misery .


Edit : The 1969 Powell case as you mentioned went down the way you describe it with Chief Justice Warren writing that Congress may "judge only the qualifications set forth in the Constitution" .
The qualifications are minimal. A senator must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen and "an inhabitant" of the state.
But his opinion in my view covers elected Senators and Reps ,not appointed ones.

!974, the Senate refused to seat Louis C. Wyman(R)from New Hampshire who won in a second recount by two votes. His Democratic rival, John Durkin,had won the first recount by 10 votes. The Senate voted to send the matter to the rules committee. They deadlocked, and the candidates agreed to a special election, which Durkin won.

The Senate Dems sent a letter to Blago that stated :
"Please understand that should you decide to ignore [our] request . . . we would be forced to exercise our constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated".

With all the great legal minds in the Senate Democrat ranks (snicker) I'm sure they considered the implications . Was that just a bluff ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Reid's actual words:"Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois, and, as we have said, will not be seated by the democratic caucus."

---

Hello again, tom:

That's different. I believe he has the right to refuse him entry into the "caucus", but not the senate. But, that's pretty dumb too.

He's going to have to distinguish between the appointer and the appointee. Didn't Blago say that?? I couldn't tell because I was admiring his awesome hair.

How about Obama weighing in? I don't think it's ANY of HIS business, and I think HE'S muddying up the waters further...

excon

See my edit

Obama weighing in was an attempt to diffuse the "race card " . I agree with you .He isout of the Senate and it is none of his business.