The Constitutional Requirement to Seat Burris
The most important factor that distinguishes the United States from many other countries around the world, both today and in comparison to civilizations long gone, is that it is a republic based upon the rule of law. It is precisely when upholding the rule of law is unpleasant or unpopular that the rule is sorely tested. The refusal of the United States Senate led by Harry Reid to seat Roland W. Burris fails that test. Burris was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich under the authority of the 17th Amendment to replace outgoing Senator Barack Obama.[1] It is clear from a review of the applicable constitutional provisions, Supreme Court case law, and the history of the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution's subsequent ratification that the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to exclude Burris. There are no political or other objectives that the Senators opposing his seating could possibly have that would in any way justify such a stark and direct violation of the Constitution.
The mistaken belief of Reid and others such as Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) comes from their complete misreading of Article I, §5, cl. 1, which provides that "each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." This provision does not give Senators the power to apply any "qualifications" they arbitrarily create and refuse to seat Burris because of unproven allegations of wrongdoing against the governor or for any other concerns that the Senators may have over the governor or his actions in office. They are ignoring the provisions of Article I, § 3, cl. 3, which state that the only qualifications under the Constitution to be a Senator are to be 30 years old, to have been a citizen for nine years, and to "be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Read the whole thing, it is a lesson in Constitutional Law...one that Constitutional lawyer and President Elect Barack Obama has apparently forgotten.
I think we can all agree that Rod Blagojevich is a crooked politician. However, that does not negate the fact that he is still Governor of Illinois and as such he is Constitutionally authorized to appoint Senator Obama's replacement. Period, end of discussion.
Labels: Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, Senator Barack Obama
posted by The Lady Logician at
8:24 AM
3 Comments:
I don't think that is the end of the discussion. Blagojevich is authorized to appoint Obama's replacement, but the Senate is likewise Constitutionally authorized to judge the qualifications of that appointment. Just because the governor was legally able to make the appointment does not mean that he made it according to the law. So long as there are legitimate questions as to the nature of the appointment the Senate has the right to ask those questions. If they fail to seat Burris after the legitimate questions have been answered and the technicalities covered (like getting the signature from the Secretary of State in IL) then they are abusing their position.
By
Anonymous, at 12:10 PM
The US (see post) and Illinois Supreme Courts disagree with you David. Both say that the Senate has no right to block Burris. The Illinois Supreme Court, just today, ruled that SOS White's signature was not necessary.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 10:29 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
The Lady Logician, at 10:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home