by James Oliphant and updated
In a statement released minutes ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats would not allow Roland Burris, Gov. Rod Blagojevich's apparent choice as Illinois' next senator, to be seated as a member of the Senate.
Reid's statement makes good on a threat issued two weeks ago by the Democratic Caucus, which will hold a commanding majority in the new Senate, that anyone named by the embattled Illinois governor would not be allowed to take office. The U.S. Constitution arguably grants the Senate the power to bar Burris from assuming the position. However, in the past, that power has been used in the past only when the senator in question was elected through fraud or corruption.
In this case, there is no evidence that Burris, a former state attorney general, figured in any way in Blagojevich's alleged scheme to leverage Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat for personal gain. And Burris would be been appointed, not elected. But Reid said Tuesday that does not matter.
"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety," Reid said. "We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."
On Dec. 17, citing the threat from Senate Democrats, Blagojevich's lawyer, Ed Genson, said the governor would not be making an appointment. Blagojevich apparently did not receive that memo.
Blagojevich is set to announce the appointment of Burris this afternoon, according to the Chicago Tribune. The question now becomes whether Burris will accept the appointment, and then whether he would choose to somehow challenge the Senate action. An Illinois state legislative panel is also determining Tuesday whether to recommend the impeachment of Blagojevich.
UPDATE: According to a Republican source, a GOP senator could, theoretically, prevent Democrats from refusing to seat Burris, should it come to that. That's because a dispute could end up before the Senate Rules Committee, which would produce a resolution either accepting or rejecting Burris. That could mean a floor vote, which, under Senate rules, could be filibustered. Senate Democrats will not have the required 60 votes to override a filibuster.
Why would a Republican want to help Burris, a Democrat, end up in the Senate and give the Dems another vote? Hard to say. But a 71-year-old Blagojevich appointee with little statewide name recognition could make for a tempting opponent for Republicans when a election to fill the seat comes around in 2010.
Comments
I hope that Burris does not accept this appointment. We have to have Blago step aside and let Pat Quinn make this selection. No one trusts Blago...why can't he get that through his head?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | December 30, 2008 2:54 PM
As a citizen of Illinois, I have to say that I am outraged by Blagojevich's defiance. Mr. Blagojevich is not only an embarrassment to himself and to his family, but also to the People of Illinois. I believe the man is not only criminal but also deeply disturbed. He is not fit to hold the Office of Governor.
Posted by: J. Owens | December 30, 2008 3:19 PM
Blago's not leaving office unless forced out; and now he's forcing Harry Reid and the Dems. to prevent a Senate seat to an African-American. You can't say Balgojevich isn't clever. And now we have to hear from the legal experts; Harry Reid may have to relent.
Posted by: rupert | December 30, 2008 3:21 PM
Why on earth would ANYONE accept this appointment? There is absolutely no positive to be gained from taking this form Blago at this point.
You've shamed yourself Mr. Burris. You've shamed the State of Illinois.
Posted by: Liz | December 30, 2008 3:27 PM
This may be a legal move. Since Blagojevich plans to fight this in the courts his failing to appoint an interim senator could be interpreted as an admission of guilt. That would imply that he behaves rationally. The more likely explanation is that he continues in his hypomanic state and has no sense of how his star has fallen.
Will Burris keep the fantasy alive by agreeing to become senator. This is more fantastic than fiction.
Posted by: Ron M | December 30, 2008 3:35 PM
Roland Burris may or may not have been a good choice for this Senate seat but he shouldn't accept it because everything he would say or do while he was in the Senate would be tainted because he was appointed by Blago. If Burris is smart he will reject this nomination.
Posted by: helen | December 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Burris will end up serving via the courts or a deal with the Dems.
http://www.political-buzz.com
Posted by: Matt | December 30, 2008 3:36 PM
TheSenate will CHANGE and confirm Roland Burgess as Illinois Senator rather than disrupt the Democratic Core.
Posted by: Inky | December 30, 2008 3:57 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | December 30, 2008 3:21 PM
.
You appear to be right. As long as Blagojevich is the Governor and has the Constitutional power to appoint Obama’s successor, the Senate has to honor any appointment he makes. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to have said so already.
.
In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the Congress' power under Article I, Section 5, to judge the "Qualifications of its Members" is limited to judging the standing qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution - which are age, residency and citizenship. Thus, neither the House nor the Senate has the power to exclude a duly elected (or appointed) member who otherwise meets the Constitution's membership requirements. (Id., at 518-48, 550.) Furthermore, Article I, Section 5 only provides for expulsion as a punishment for the misconduct of an already seated member. This was view of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669-70 (1897), where the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking of the constitutional powers of the Senate said, “The right to expel extends to all cases where the offense is such as in the judgment of the senate is inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member.”
.
Blagojevich is still the governor of Illinois and will remain the governor until and unless he resigns, is impeached and removed, or is voted out. Accordingly, if Blagojevich exercises his Seventeenth Amendment power to appoint Burris, who presumably meets the Constitution’s age, citizenship and residency requirements for membership in the Senate, neither Reid’s nor the Senate’s displeasure with Blagojevich can provide a valid basis to exclude him. Expulsion would not lie because it only applies to seated members and, in any event, would require proof that the appointee (rather than the appointer) committed some offense inconsistent with his or her trust and duty as a Senator. Burris doesn’t carry that kind of dirty baggage and, again, displeasure with Blagojevich doesn’t count. Thus, if appointed, Burris would not only be entitled to Obama’s former seat, he would have the right to sue to be seated.
Posted by: John W. | December 30, 2008 4:30 PM
Blago's not leaving office unless forced out; and now he's forcing Harry Reid and the Dems. to prevent a Senate seat to an African-American. You can't say Balgojevich isn't clever. And now we have to hear from the legal experts; Harry Reid may have to relent.
Posted by: rupert | December 30, 2008 3:21 PM
.Don't think H Reid has much creditiibilty any more same as Dick Durbin..
Posted by: Inky | December 30, 2008 5:01 PM
Don't think H Reid has much creditiibilty any more same as Dick Durbin..
Posted by: Inky | December 30, 2008 5:01 PM
Of course you wouldn't think that, you're a partisan Republican who has been cheerleading for BushCo the last eight years.
Posted by: helen | December 30, 2008 5:08 PM
So the senate will not seat Obama's replacement. It had happened before in Milwaukee Wisc in the early part of the twentieth century. What the people of the district who will not have any representation in the senate should do it to voluntary make the non representation permanent by boycotting the next senate race in that district. After all is there a guarantee that the person who won the next election will be allow to sit? That should scare the senate since it may unravel this system of government.
Posted by: Alan Radtke | December 30, 2008 6:14 PM
Burris has been appointed by the sitting Gov. He,Burris has done nothing wrong. I don't believe he can be denied his seat. Sen. Reid should know that. Maybe the good people of Nevada will be wise enough not to re-elect this sham of a legislator.
Posted by: Paul | December 31, 2008 8:47 AM
Rupert, you are exactly right. The constitution gives the Senate the right to deny seating Mr. Burris only for the specific reasons listed in Article I section 3; that is the senator must be over 30 years of age, 9 years a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the state from which he is elected. The 1969 ruling by the Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack held that Article I, Section 5 specifically limited the powers of the Senate to deny the seating of a member based on the qualifications stated above from Article I, section 3. There are previous examples of the Senate denying seating of an appointee which were obviously unconstitutional based on a quick review of Article I Section 5 and the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, in each of those examples the appointed/ elected Senator himself was accused of wrong doing. Mr. Burris has not been accused of wrong doing. Not seating him would set a horrible precedent that the constitution can now be disregarded, even without a coherent argument. As for Mr. Obama, either he has not bothered to read the constitution, or more likely he wouldn't want to let it get in the way of his career. I hope Mr. Reid will hear from his constituents in Nevada about this abuse of power at election time.
Posted by: Wind_Chop | January 2, 2009 11:01 PM