Harry Reid go and study the fugging law

[malaise]

The Governor of Illinois - love him or hate him - is still in charge. You are wrong.

[Blarch]

1. I think he knows it now.

His lawyers must have told him he already overstepped his power. What a tool.

[malaise]

2. Not based on the crap he's spewing

He says the LA Times is wrong and they merely presented the legal facts.

[babylonsister]

3. He's in charge?

Is that even possible w/o a security clearance? They're fasttracking the impeachment, too. The guy is a crook who tried to sell a senate seat, and no, he hasn't been convicted yet. But are you really comfortable with a crook making this decision?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/02/blagojevichs-homeland-sec_n_154927.html

[malaise]

4. He has not been indicted let alone

tried. The law remains the law. Leave the alleged crook out of this - Harry is setting a dangerous precedent.

[babylonsister]

6. 'Arrested by the FBI for a staggering level of corruption' works for me.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html


Blagojevich arrested on federal charges
December 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM | Comments (123)

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents for what U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald called a "staggering" level of corruption involving pay-to-play politics in Illinois' top office.

Blagojevich is accused of a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy, including alleged attempts by the governor to try to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama in exchange for financial benefits for the governor and his wife. Blagojevich also is accused of obtaining campaign contributions in exchange for other official actions.

Blagojevich was taken into federal custody at his North Side home this morning--one day shy of his 52nd birthday.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Kindly point me to the portion of the law that deals with what I'm "comfortable" with. Thanks!

EDIT: Subject typo.

[Blarch]

8. I am comfortable with the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Has be been convicted, or when did this country adopt the Napoleonic Code?

Blago MAY BE A CROOK, but he has YET to have his day in court

Until then, he has the authority to do this

[WeDidIt]

7. The Senate can refuse to seat a certified winning candidate from an election

if that election has been proven to the Senate's satisfaction to have been tainted.

The same holds true for an appointment.

The appointment of Burris was tainted.

[ColesCountyDem]

9. Not according to the USSC in Powell v. McCormack.

The Senate can *expel* Mr. Burris, but it lacks the power to *exclude* him, according to the US Supreme Court.

[WeDidIt]

11. Ahhh, by Mr. Powell was LEGITIMATELY re-elected

IT was a close election, but a legitimate election nonetheless.

Plus, that was an election, not an appointment.

Powell v. McCormack has no application whatsoever to the Burris appointment.

[ColesCountyDem]

12. Oh, but it does indeed apply.

The fact that Powell was elected and Burris is appointed is irrelevant. The point of the case was that no one who meets the constitutional requirements for a seat may be excluded from the body.

[WeDidIt]

13. Not the point at all. Powell has no application to Burris.

The case never ruled on whether the Senate could exclude somebody on the basis of a corrupted process in choosing.

Powell was excluded because of his scandal that erupted, which the House dectermined a new qualification other than that specified in the constitution.

In excluding Burris, however, the exclusion would have absolutely nothing to do with qualifications.

Read this from Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution:

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.

Powell v. McCormack only addressed the judgement of qualifications.

If going after Burris because of a corrupted appointment process, the Senate will be judging 'returns', not qualifications.

[ColesCountyDem]

14. You did not understand the Court's holding in Powell v. McCormack, apparently.

Powell v. McCormack
Docket: 138
Citation: 395 U.S. 486 (1969)
Petitioner: Powell
Respondent: McCormack


Case Media

* Oral Argument
* Written Opinion

Abstract
Argument: Monday, April 21, 1969
Decision: Monday, June 16, 1969
Issues: Judicial Power, Mootness
Categories: congress, jurisdiction, justiciability, separation of powers


Advocates
Bruce Bromley (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Arthur Kinoy (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Herbert O. Reid (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Adam Clayton Powell pecked at his fellow representatives from his unassailable perch in New York's Harlem. Powell had been embroiled in controversy inside and outside Washington. When Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. His problems were only beginning. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him.

Question

May the House of Representatives exclude a duly elected member if the member has satisfied the standing requirements of age, citizenship and residence as articulated in Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?

Conclusion

No. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. However, expulsion was not the purpose of the proceedings in this case. After analyzing the Framers' debates on this issue, Chief Justice Warren concluded that since Powell had been lawfully elected by his constituents and since he met the constitutional requirements for membership in the House, that the chamber was powerless to exclude him.

[WeDidIt]

15. No,. you fail to recognize what the case was about.

The House sought to define qualifications that were not in the consitution to begin with. The ruling does not allow the House to rule on qualiifications outside those enoumerated within the consitution.

Nobody is saying that Burris is not qualified. The Senate will exclude him based upon the returns that granted him the seat in the first place. Under Article 1, Section 5, the Senate is the sole judge of elections and returns.

Powell v. McCormack does not apply.

[ColesCountyDem]

16. No, you're still don't understand the Court's holding in 'Powell'.

Not only does Powell v. McCormack apply, it is on point.

Burris' appointment complies in all respects with Illinois law on the filling of vacancies in Senate seats; not even Sen. Reid was bold enough to contest that point of law on Meet the Press this morning. Mr. Burris is in all respects qualified, constitutionally, to hold a US Senate seat.

Once again, read Powell carefully: the Court held that the House could not *exclude* Mr. Powell-- it could only *expel* him after he had taken his seat.

[WeDidIt]

17. I've read Powell many times

IT says nothing whatsoever in the power of the Congress to judge elections and returns, only the power to judge qualifications.

There may be a ruling one day that says the Senate must seat Burris, but that will take a Burris v. Reid ruling. Powell does not apply.

[ColesCountyDem]

27. I'm sorry, but your flat-out wrong.

The language in Powell plainly says that Congress does not have the power that you and Sen. Reid are claiming it does.

[WeDidIt]

29. Only in the context of qualifications

Not in the context of judging elections or returns.

[AZ Criminal JD]

20. No one has alleged the appointment of Burris was corrupted.

Who has said that? No one.

[WeDidIt]

23. Reid, Durbin,. Obama

to name three.

The process for naming Burris was corrupted. That is undeniable.

[ColesCountyDem]

28. No, that's not true.

None of them said that. What they DID say was that Blagojevich is corrupt. In answer to a question on Meet the Press Sunday about whether or not Illinois law was followed in appointing Burris to the vacancy, Sen. Reid acknowledged that that appeared to be the case. He then went off on this goofy 'but that's not the point' tangent.

Sorry, but that's precisely the point, Senator.

[backscatter712]

18. Except Burris was not elected - he was appointed.

Because of the corruption scandal around Blago, there's perfectly legal and legitimate reasons for the Senate to refuse to seat him - in the Constitution, this goes under "returns", and the Senate is the final arbiter as to whether a candidate returned is legitimate and can be seated.

[AZ Criminal JD]

19. No, it's not

You are just making something up. An appointment is not a "return". Try again.

[backscatter712]

22. Read IWantAnyDem's posts.

The intricacies of the Constitution are explained.

[jacksonian]

25. in other words

no govenor with any accusation against him can nominate anyone? Even if that allegation is not yet proved? And if a state needs a Senator and that govenor has somebody accusing him of something, well, the state should just pound sand until it resolves everything or impeaches, right?

You're not thinking about this.

[backscatter712]

30. That's for the Senate to decide.

Obviously, if the Senate thinks the accusations are bogus, they can vote to seat the appointee.

[Enrique]

10. how do you know that? n/t

[cali]

24. Going to tell that to Lawrence Tribe, too?

I don't know whether Reid is right or wrong on whether Burris has to be seated, but quite a few legal experts agree with Reid. I do know that it's politically stupid to fight seating him.

[dysfunctional press]

26. Reid says that blago is "obviously corrupt", but ted stevens was innocent until proven guilty...

fuck harry reid- the two-faced p.o.s.