Constitutional Crisis: Refusal to Seat a US Senator

[Hunter]

I have never posted in this sub-forum before but you guys seem to know your stuff on politics. One of my personal interests is national politics and I am sure each of you are aware of the recent appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's Senate Seat by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Sen. Harry Reid has come out and said that he and the rest of the Senate will refuse to seat any Blago appointment citing the Senate's constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its members under the Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution. ""Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.""

I was reading an article on Fox News today which brings up an interesting point: Can the Senate actually refuse to seat Burris?

Peter Johnson Jr., a FOX News legal analyst, said Wednesday the law favors Blagojevich and Burris.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear with regard to congressman ... The Constitution allows them to make a decision, but the decision is based on the parameters upon the constitution ... Are you the right age? Are you a citizen? That's it. It's not a discretionary thing, are you qualified? Do we like the guy that appointed you?" Johnson said.

"The Senate has the right to expel on a two-thirds vote. They don't have a discretionary right if he meets the constitutional requirements. This is a constitutional crisis," he said.

Fox News


My guess is that the US Senate will initially refuse to seat Burris however if the case is taken to the courts, the Senate will ultimately have to seat him if the Supreme Court rules the same way it did in the 1969 case when the House refused to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Could we then see the shortest tenure of a US Senator where the Senate seats Burris and then immediately vote to expel him by a 2/3 vote?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Well, Harry Reid must be racist then! Remember the press conference, that Burris shouldn't be "hung and lynched" and should just get in.

BLACK!


HE'S BLACK!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_h...lynch_the_black_man_chosen_by_rod_blagojevich

He (Representative Bobby Rush) urged people "to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer" and, after saying repeatedly that Burris would be the only African-American in the Senate, said that he believed no senator would want "to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate".

I think this is all a sham. Blago shouldn't be able to appoint anyone until the investigation is over and his appointee should not be recognized until he is vindicated 100%.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, the Constitutional basis for the Senate refusing to seat Burris is a bit shaky. The Constitution says that the Senate is essentially the final arbitor over "elections and returns" and "qualifications" as they pertain to senators. However, an appointment doesn't qualify as "elections and returns." And the Supreme Court case of Powell vs. McCormack specifically limited "qualifications" to issues of age, residence and US citizenship.

So, it probably will require a 2/3rds vote to expel him.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Not so fast.

The Powell ruling was for a Congressman who was "elected", not "appointed" as Burris is. There's a big difference and that probably gives the Congress a lot more leeway on whether it will seat Burris or not. His appointment could be stalled for quite some time. Also, while the Gov of Illinois has the sole authority to appoint for a vacant Senate seat, the US Senate can vote to not seat him. They do not need to seat him and then expel him. That is a gray area as this is unprecedented. How the Senate would do this is to state that the appointment was tainted under the current allegations of fraud against Blagojevich.

All that said, in the end, unless it can be proven that Burris is somehow connected to the charges against the gov, he will be seated. I think the US Supreme case regarding Powell will give enough guidance to override any decision by the Senate to not seat him. But it could drag on for a couple of years.

 

[hasoos]

Actually this is pretty interesting. Because if you take a look at this these issues come to mind:

1. Just because Blagovich violated ethics policies does not mean he still isn't the governor. He is governor until deposed.

2. As governor he may appoint the replacment, it is within his power. He can do it any way he wants to. You may not like it, but he can. That is why they call it an executive decision. You may not like it, but it is their decision, alone to make.

3. As far as I know, it matters not if you are appointed or elected. There is no distinction of the two ways of getting to office. You are in.

4. Chances are this is just a bunch of political posturing.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Actually this is pretty interesting. Because if you take a look at this these issues come to mind:

1. Just because Blagovich violated ethics policies does not mean he still isn't the governor. He is governor until deposed.

2. As governor he may appoint the replacment, it is within his power. He can do it any way he wants to. You may not like it, but he can. That is why they call it an executive decision. You may not like it, but it is their decision, alone to make.

3. As far as I know, it matters not if you are appointed or elected. There is no distinction of the two ways of getting to office. You are in.

4. Chances are this is just a bunch of political posturing.

All but #3 are correct. The constitution states "elected", not "appointed". That leaves grounds for dispute. Also, the gov did this after being arrested for attempting to sell this senatoral seat. He also makes this appointment as the state legislature is in the midst of both impeaching him and setting up a special election for the vacant seat. Again, the US Senate is adamant they will refuse to seat Burris and Obama has openly agreed and states he will not receive or have any part in a swearing in for Burris.

However, I agree that in the end it is probable (but not a done deal) that Burris will have the seat. Also, Burris is under heavy pressure from the state legislature, federal legislature and Obama to not attempt to take this appointment. If he is as decent as he states, he will probably stand down.

Great drama.

 

[MARIS61]

It seems like he's nowhere near qualified to be a Senator so the rest is moot, IMO.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It seems like he's nowhere near qualified to be a Senator so the rest is moot, IMO.

So he joins a group that includes about 2/3's of the current US Senate.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

It seems like he's nowhere near qualified to be a Senator so the rest is moot, IMO.

He's black. that's enough.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16977.html

Blocking Blago: Senate has Plan B for 90-day delay
By: Mike Allen
December 31, 2008 07:30 PM EST
Roland Burris went to the Illinois Supreme Court on New Year’s Eve to try to get his Senate appointment certified, but Senate leaders back in Washington have a Plan B to keep from swearing him, regardless of what the court decides.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has said he will not certify the controversial appointment by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

But even if the Illinois justices force him to make the appointment official, Senate Democrats in Washington will still resist.

Senate officials tell Politico that if presented with the appointment, they are likely to give the Rules Committee 90 days to determine the propriety of the appointment by looking into such issues as whether Blagojevich received anything in return for it.

“A motion to refer credentials to the committee has the effect of delaying seating,” a Senate Democratic aide said. “The motion is debatable and amendable.”

Another official explained: “That buys us 90 days.”

That should be enough so the senators won’t have to act to prevent Burris from joining the chamber. Blagojevich’s defiance inflamed Illinois legislators, speeding up the impeachment process.

“He will not be governor by Valentine’s Day,” the official said.

President-elect Obama plans to say as little about the matter as possible. But an official said he will declare when pressed that the Senate is well within its bounds not to seat Burris, and that it would be difficult for anyone to work effectively with this kind of cloud over them.

Sources say Blagojevich’s s successor if he’s removed from office, Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, is likely to point someone who is African- American, but likely not Burris because of the taint or Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill), who is often mentioned as a possibility but would be too controversial.

Sources said the choice is likely to be someone young and dynamic, like Dan Seals, who ran in a northeast Illinois House district in 2006 and 2008. It needs to be someone who would appeal to the white Republicans in downstate Illinois, to prevent the seat going to the GOP in a future election.