Opposing view: Seat Burris now (Lee D-CA, chair, Black Caucus | USAT)

[struggle4progress]

The Senate has no legal basis for rejecting Illinois appointment.
By Barbara Lee

The Congressional Black Caucus unanimously believes that Roland Burris, who was appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, should be accepted by the Senate to fill the seat that had been held by President-elect Barack Obama. As members of Congress, our unique experience has always compelled us to look to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law — the only principled guidance available — when determining issues such as whether to seat Burris ...

After Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was excluded from the House, the Supreme Court, in a 7-to-1 decision in 1969, strictly interpreted Article 1 in Powell v. McCormack. While the Powell case concerned an election rather than an appointment, the Court left no room for Congress to go beyond the qualifications specified in Article 1.

Further, the 17th Amendment allows "the legislature of any state (to) empower the executive … to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." The Illinois Code, in turn, provides that "the Governor shall make temporary appointment(s) to fill such vacancy until the next election" ...

No qualified person, appointed or elected according to applicable law and procedures, has ever been excluded from the Senate. (Though the Senate in 1893 and 1913 refused to seat two appointed senators, neither was properly appointed.) We believe that the Senate can seat Burris while upholding the Constitution and preserving the Senate's institutional integrity.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/opposing-view-s.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. Anybody who believes in being a nation of laws believes Burris should be seated.

[struggle4progress]

3. The Senate might reasonably delay until convinced there is no obvious taint but

thereafter I should think they ought to seat him, as they have the later option of expelling if a real problem is discovered

On the other hand, if Blagojevich is removed as governor, it might be politically considerate of Burris to withdraw from the whole affair, simply as a courtesy to the incoming President and to Senate Democrats, who obviously prefer not to have the distraction

[BlooInBloo]

4. Please show me the part of the law requiring a showing of "no obvious taint". Thanks!

[struggle4progress]

5. Since I think we essentially agree, an extensive theoretical discussion by me would be

counter-productive. I am not personally offended by the Senate's delay so far, as it has been brief, and it seems understandable considering the seriousness of the charges, that Senators might have worried could have been raised. The law, as you correctly point out, has no provision regarding taints -- but the Senate is a highly political body, and one cannot expect it to ignore political issues completely, especially as Senators fear paying a political price for rushing to seat a person, if it become credible immediately thereafter that said person had been appointed in corrupt disregard of law. There seems, at present, absolutely no evidence of that, and I do not at all expect such evidence to emerge in the future; and since the Senate could expel if probative evidence of such corruption did emerge, I will agree the Senate's only appropriate course at present is to administer Burris the oath

[BlooInBloo]

6. You think wrongly.

EDIT: Getting around the law by running the clock out is NOT the same thing as obeying the law. It's fucking cowardly, too.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/burris_part_deux.php

[struggle4progress]

7. That happens frequently enough. Still, you do not state your disagreement, and I am not inclined

to guess it

[MADem]

2. I agree with them completely. Blago is a sitting, unconvicted governor who appointed, as was his

charge to do, a replacement for that Senate seat.

The IL legislature had a LOT of time to go after Blago, but they didn't, for whatever reason. They've got no one to blame but themselves.

Rule of law trumps "attitude" about the guy. They didn't excercise their duty, so there's no sense griping when the governor did HIS duty--for whatever craven reason.

Jimmy Carter likes Burris--that's enough of an endorsement for me.