Burris Determined to Take His Senate Seat Tuesday

[depakid]

Source: NY Times

Barack Obama's appointed successor declared Tuesday he's qualified to take a seat in the Senate and said he'll go to Capitol Hill to do just that.

''I'm presenting myself as the legally appointed senator from the state of Illinois. It is my hope and prayer that they recognize that the appointment is legal,'' Roland Burris said in a nationally broadcast interview just hours before the Senate convenes with the start of the 111th Congress. Burris dismissed the Senate Democratic leadership's position that he cannot be seated because he was appointed by a governor accused in a criminal complaint of trying to benefit financially from his authority to fill the seat that Obama vacated after winning the presidential election.

''As I read the U.S. Constitution,'' he said on CBS's ''The Early Show,'' it says the ''governor shall fill a vacancy, and as a former attorney general of my state, I have no knowledge of where a secretary of state has veto power over a governor carrying out his constitutional duties.''

Burris also maintained that the announcement by Gov. Rod Blagojevich Monday of a date for an election for a successor to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., proves the governor still has legal authority to carry out his duties.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/06/washington/AP-Senate-Burris.html

[Hokie]

1. He has a good point on Emmanuel's seat

[madrchsod]

2. he can`t-

-the secretary of the state of illinois did not approve his appointment. this gives the leadership of the democrats an out not to seat burris.

i was in favor to seat burris but i`ve changed my mind. i think it`s best to wait till blago is impeached and convicted. then the lt governor can choose the replacement.

[IsItJustMe]

5. I really don't think it matters what you think. I think it is determined by law. But then again, I

could be wrong.

On Edit. Harry, is that you?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. If the Sect of State is a Repo and doesn't want a Dem he can block it?

[madrchsod]

13. a dam good democrat

that is standing with the rest of the democrats here....

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I mean anytime any where. If you believe the law allows an SOS to block a governor's appointment,

then what's to stop a Repo SOS from just refusing to sign so a Dem isn't seated?

My guess is Harry Reid will seat the Jr Senator.

What is your guess?

[Winterblues]

19. By what authority?

As Secretary he must abide by the Governor. It is his duty to sign off not his desires. He must by law sign off on the Governor's appointments... He has no choice in the matter...

[John Q. Citizen]

21. i agree.

[fasttense]

3. Yeah right Like Harry Reid will do anything about it. Al Franken should show up too. n/t

[byeya]

4. Burris

I think he and Franken should be seated. People are talking about the IL governor as if he's been convicted when the Republican Fitzgerald can't even get an indictment. Until and unless, it should be business as usual, and if there's nothing in Mr Burris's background to disqualify him, he should take his seat as a US Senator.

[IsItJustMe]

6. Looks like the Democrats aren't much different that the Republicans after all.

You have Jesse White, who has no veto power over Blagos pick, refusing to sign the ceritification. You have the Senate Dems, who have no legal
standing to do so, refusing to seat Burris.

So the message is quit clear, when you don't like the law, just don't follow it. This to me is no different the Bush's signing statements.

I swear, I never want to hear any of hypocrits complain about someone not following the law.

[w4rma]

7. You know. I've changed my mind. After reading all this BS about Burris, I think he's corrupt, too.

He bought that seat and he's going to force his way into it no matter what problems he causes folks or who else would be better qualified.

[IsItJustMe]

20. The law is the law and what you or I think about it doen't mean a damn thing.

[Piewhacket]

8. Idiot... he's supposed to be some kind of lawyer?

Then let him sue in state court to compel the Illinois Sec State
to certify the appointment. Whats wrong with doing that first?
If the court orders its certification then that removes a (serious)
technicality any Senator can use to block him from being seated.

Frankly I would be obliged to use the rule to block Burris, even
if I wanted him in the Senate, were I a Senator. Embarrassing, but necessary.
For seating a US Senator is a very serious matter not easily
undone, and the legalities better be observed. Seriously.
Currently the rules require certification of the appointment
by the State SS, and by God that rule is, imho proper and would
stand against a court challenge.

After overcoming that hurdle, assuming he succeeded, wouldn't
necessarily get him into the senate, as other objections may follow.
But this attempted 'end run' will just get Burris labeled a whack-case,
which he is already 70% earned by taking the appointment in the
first place.

[Wizard777]

10. If the law says the SoS shall affix his seal. If the context of shall forms an order.

The ommission of the SoS's seal Constitutes a crime. Never mind suing him. The Governor can have him arrested.

[Piewhacket]

12. The SOS has refused to affix his seal to the appointment ..

(The SoS also refuses to affix his seal to MY appointment for Senator, the dork!)
(Its soooo hard to get good help these days, eh?)

Anyway, the SOS may have his reasons for refusing, and the way to find out
is to challenge the refusal in a court (which I have just learned Burris
is doing). http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/illinois.senate/index.html

If the SoS has good reasons for refusing, then Burris will lose and will
NOT be ordered certified and will therefore not BE the appointed junior Senator
from Illinois under state law, and therefore will not be seated as the
junior senator from Illinois by the senate because then he WOULDN'T BE the
junior senator from Illinois and the senate has rules prohibiting
seating people as senators who aren't senators, shocking as that may seem to some.

So far, so good?

But if the SoS does NOT have good reason for his refusal then Burris will win
and the SoS will be ordered to do his duty and certify Burris, in which case
the Senate would not be able to object to the lack of certification but some
senators might still have objections about Burris being seated ,
and that could raise Art I constitutional issues and have to be decided by the
US Supreme Court, assuming they can't work it out.

But nobody wants to get their hands dirty and until Burris is certified, the
senate has a perfectly sound reason for rejecting him.

In sum, Blago is a nutcase for attempting the appointment, even if he was 100% innocent,
but Burris is also looking like a nutcase for accepting it, and even worse for
pushing it absent certification. This is all embarrassing and ain't going down well,
even if Burris somehow later succeeds.

Illinois needs a better deal than this.

US Constitution. Art I, Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

[Wizard777]

14. The SoS is violating the Illinios Constitution as well as the US Constitution.

SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection
of the laws.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

He is depriving the governor of the liberty to make the appointment without due process of law. But the Governor would have to file that suit.

[Piewhacket]

15. The appointee Burris would file the suit, which he has.

for he is aggrieved.
The Governor could also file, I think,
but the Gov is not a particularly sympathetic figure
at this moment, right? better he not get any more involved.
which is unnecessary if Burris files, which he has.

As to legal theories... who knows what Burris is doing
but I think for us it is basically a question
whether the SoS is, under the circumstances,
required by state law to certify the appointment.
yes or no.

This ought to be fun to see the court squirm.
keep your popcorn handy.

:popcorn:

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Burris will be seated, and soon.

i hope that doesn't spoil your popcorn fun.

[Piewhacket]

18. He will need to be certified first...

that looks like it will require a state supreme court decision.
they won't like the case. thats the popcorn part.

this isn't about Burris (although I'm critical of what he is doing)
its the appointment that is tainted, not Burris.

but before he can be seated he must be first certified as the appointee.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. No, he won't. There is no law that states that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4787033

You make some very sweeping and absolute statements.

Yet those absolutes are not credible nor are they even sensible.

You are wrong about the law, and you are wrong about the situation as a whole. Please retract your erroneous statements.

And be more careful and considered in the future. It's your credibility and reputation after all, and at this point you haven't come off as very reliable.

Thanks!

[Wizard777]

11. Actually the Senate is violating the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They are depriving Blago of the liberty to appoint Burris without due process of law. He is innocent until proven guilty and retains all rights until he is convicted.