Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
There's some talk from Senate democrats that they will refuse to seat Gov. Blagojevich's choice as Senator, Roland Burris. Dick Durbin reportedly said: "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."
Amazing that a lawyer-turned-lawmaker has forgotten about Powell v. McCormack. While Article 1 § 5 makes each chamber the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, Powell makes clear that this prerogative is limited to judging the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. None of them are implicated in Burris' case (or would have been implicated had Ted Stevens been reelected).
The power to judge elections - seemingly assumed to be relevant in this NYT report - is not implicated. It may become useful in the Coleman-Franken race, but is irrelevant to this case. Burris arrives by appointment, pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment, not by election; there is simply no election to judge.
The Democrats can refuse to admit Burris to their caucus, and they can try to eject him from the Senate (to what effect, though? That would simply create another appointment for Blago to fill!), but they have no basis that I see for refusing to seat him.
Added: Here's a source for that Durbin quote, and I explore a related issue about the Secretary of State's attempted veto here.
Post facto:
The limits of the appointment power, II (1/13/10)
Our RSS feed
Last I looked, Burris had
Last I looked, Burris had attained and passed 30 years of age, has been a citizen his entire life, and is a legal resident of the state he is tasked to represent. Nor do I see any authority for the Senate to overturn the clear language of the 17th Amendment regarding appointment power. Blago has the authority to make the appointment, period. Pretty much covers it, doesn't it?
Even were there any traction in the "qualifications" clause argument, what qualifications do they propose to use that apply to Burris himself, rather than to his appointer? Burris' politics are probably not my cup of tea, but I know of no "disqualifications" on his part that would pass the LOL test. He's not under investigation or indictment, is not accused of any moral turpitude or crimes, etc. Not liking Blago speaks not at all to Burris' own qualifications, which appear to be constitutionally sufficient, and barring going directly against the 17th he is fully as qualified as any now sitting in the chamber. Maybe more so, as to the best of my knowledge he's not under investigation or indictment, is not accused of any moral turpitude or crimes, etc.... :-)
I suppose they could attempt to expel Burris once seated. If so, I want ringside seats to the spectacle of the Democratic Party attempting to expel an otherwise fully qualified African-American member of the US Senate on no better grounds than a dislike of the man who appointed him to the term remainder. Oh hellz, yeah, we wants to see that.
As an aside on Burris himself, this is one guy who KNOWS he's being offered as a short-timer and seat-filler. I don't know whether to sneer at him or admire his voluntary martyrdom. Which comes, of course, with a nice salary and some pleasant perks.
Burris should have declined.
Burris should have declined. I won't argue the law, but Burris knows Obama supports the view from the Senate. Perhaps Simon can point to Obama's Press statement today for further signs of less than Constitutional thinking.
"Burris does not have to be formally approved by the Senate.
But according to associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie, if there is a question about the appointment, the Senate could reject the appointment and immediately vacate the seat or vote to seat the senator pending an investigation by the Rules Committee or some other body." CNN
Again, I won't be surprised if Caroline becomes a US Senator. Maybe we should change the law and have special elections. And will Blago fill Rohm's seat too? Fitzgerald knew this would happen. Are there any laws that could expedite Blago's trial and eventual incarceration, or do you all think Blago might go free?
While they may have to seat
While they may have to seat him, I am not sure that there is a legal impediment to an expulsion vote. They could just always wait until Blago is removed from office and then do an expulsion. Probably the least likely scenario, though. [Enough GOP and Dem Senators may vote against expulsion to prevent a 2/3 total] As far as the African-American issue goes, well we are post-racial now, right?
This is the Democrats nightmare. It probably actually works to Obama's benefit in the long run by a weakening distraction for Reid. Now he just needs something to get leverage over Pelosi.
With Hillary at his side and
With Hillary at his side and Iran contemplating more proxy prodding along with the Taliban gaining ground in Pakistan, Obama might bring centrists together and create a rather large club for use on Pelosi. Blago just needs to fill Emanuel's seat to bring Pelosi into the fire.
Problem is that rules call
Problem is that rules call for a Special Election for Emanuel's seat, not an appointment.
Interim appointment
Sorry, I meant interim appointment.
"Congress may not in any way alter the qualifications of its members from the exclusive list given in the Constitution (age, length of citizenship, and inhabitant of state where elected). Therefore, "excluding" a Congressman by a two-thirds majority vote is not allowed although the Constitution allows expulsion by a two-thirds vote." Wiki
Hense giving Blago another chance to pick. I wonder what powers the Illinois Senate has beyond impeachment. An expulsion rule would be nice. I hope Democrats find foreign policy less of a mess. Sure, I bet Pelosi would love an interim pick to keep Emanuel's seat warm in his chase of her seat. So far one might think Pelosi and Reid are not altogether thrilled with the O-team.
An expulsion vote would do
An expulsion vote would do all the noted political damage, Max, and they'd still have to seat him before they could expel him. How likely the GOP would help them reach that 2/3rds expulsion vote, when voting the other way gives them a real Dem Cannibal Feast? ;-)
What the Dems CAN do is refuse to seat him with the Dem Caucus. Leaving him the choice of being indie or GOP. I suspect the GOP would be happy to take him.
RIGHT. ON. CUE. The race
RIGHT. ON. CUE.
The race card is played: Don't "hang or lynch" the black man chosen by Rod Blagojevich
We haz circus.
Hell, as I was thinking those
Hell, as I was thinking those thoughts and reflecting on the race card played, you posted your comment above.
America won't forget politicians from Illinois for some time..LOL
Yep, race card played again.
Well that's why expulsion
Well that's why expulsion seems not to be the option Reid wants. And Blago can pick again. Sure, the GOP would love Burris.
I meant it would be nice if the Illinois Senate had another option to block Blago other than impeachment. Declare a special election? I'm not sure what the Illinois Senate could or would do. I see your comment below.
Yep, how ironic that a black Liberal senator would avoid exclusion with the help of the GOP in direct defiance of Obama and Reid.
Chris, I am hardly convinced this mess was Obama's creation. True, this appears far from a new era of politics, but as Tully noted, we will get what we voted for, not what we think we voted for. Most of this mess from Gaza to Illinois was SO predictable. Blago was under attack during the primary. The truth was out there, but media was elsewhere. This mess many predicted would follow Obama into the WH is more the result of present Democratic politics than a particular flaw of Obama. The race cards were an inevitable consequence of this dynamic and the unprecedented election of a Black President. Blago seems to understand the game and his selection was rather shrewd.
I didn't think Obama had any part in this
It's just bad timing. This is the last thing he wanted at this point in time.
He didn't create it except in
He didn't create it except in the sense of having to leave his Senate seat. He is however well within the splatter zone, and thus will take some damage. Indeed, has already taken some--how many times has a president-elect had to spend time with investigators before taking the oath? Likewise his chief of staff?
As I said when the story broke, it's not that I think the O-Team members are technically guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, but that sheer association with the scandal will suck some of the oxygen out of the startup. The downright Clintonial parsing of O's claim to "no contact," Rahm's obvious contacts on O's behalf, their laughably minimizing self-exculpation, etc., have not helped them. The story will drag out and continue to suck oxygen out of the O-Team to some extent, even without any criminal problem on their hands.
You are right
And let us all be honest. The litany of associations and support from people like Blago reaches a threshold of deserved splatter. Obama had more than enough chances to distance himself from Rezko, Wright, Blago, Khalidi, Phelger, Ayers and several others early on. He chose to damn the questioner rather than make a clean break with his entanglements. He often said things like Wright wasn't controversial, or he did not remember, he had no contact etc. His first impulse has always been to deny or deflect. He usually waits to the last minute to throw former friends and backers under the bus. It is this historical context that leads to the splatter effect. Blago just nails it and because so much of this mud was never flushed fully by media, it was inevitable that the dirt will sweep into the WH. That is why I always thought his AG pick is very important. I will not be surprised that trials will force Obama to give testimony. His failure to make a clean break will come home to roost, as Wright puts it.
On the other hand, Obama's not being indicted for anything so far shows a careful and clever politician. Kudos for that. He is right up there with the Clintons.
I didn't think Obama had any part in this
It's just bad timing. This is the last thing he wanted at this point in time.
17th Amendment
I heard a legal expert on the Hannity radio show say that this:
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
Could be used to block the appointment as no election has been scheduled or held.
The way I read it the Ill.
The way I read it the Ill. legislature could have avoided this with quick action, but did not. Once Blago makes the appointment it's too late for them to exercise their option, at least on that appointment.
That doesn't work; pursuant
That doesn't work; pursuant to the 17th Amendment, the legislature of Illinois had "empower[ed] the executive thereof to make temporary appointments" pending elections, which precludes Sean's guest's theory.
Fox needs you Simon. Given
Fox needs you Simon. Given the likely legal tangle for years to come, you might have fun on guest spots.....
No emergency provisions the Illinois Senate can use?
Considering the wording of
Considering the wording of temporary, is there an option for the Legislature to call a special election for the seat still existing?
this is NOT the intro to the
this is NOT the intro to the "new era" that President Obama wanted. I keep thinking of Rev. King's famous words of "judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character". This REALLY turns that on its head. Especially given Bobby Rush's statement
Boy one guy can really f*** things up!