iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Burris Refused Senate Seat On Capitol Arrival (VIDEO)

First Posted: 02/06/09 05:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.

Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted."

The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris also said he was looking at options for taking the seat.

It was a spectacular demonstration of political gridlock at a time when the Democratic-controlled Congress has been eagerly awaiting Obama's inauguration while nervously anticipating tense work on a much-discussed stimulus program to steady the faltering economy.

An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter."

Asked what his options were, Wright said there possibly could be a court challenge and he said that Burris also would continue to talk to the Senate leadership.

There had been earlier indications that the Senate would disallow Burris to take his seat, at least in part because his letter of appointment from Blagojevich was not co-signed by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race."

Earlier Tuesday, Burris had tense negotiations with Terrence Gainer, the Senate's sergeant at arms.

"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," he said earlier in a nationally broadcast interview.

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.

Burriss said his belief is that his appointment is constitutional and that "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 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. Emanuel will be Obama's White House chief of staff.

"There's nothing wrong with Roland Burris and there's nothing wrong with the appointment," Burris said.

Burris has found little support among fellow Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had said Monday that Burris would not be permitted to take his seat because Burris "has not been certified by the state of Illinois," a reference to incomplete paperwork that only touches on the dispute. Senate Democrats maintain that Burris' appointment is tainted because of the charges against Blagojevich.

While Blagojevich has signed formal appointment papers, White has not, and Senate rules require that signature. Burris, in turn, has gone to court hoping to win an order for White to sign the necessary paperwork, and he has also threatened to sue to take his seat in the Senate.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Co...
WASHINGTON — Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Co...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,729
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (41 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mitsie
07:14 PM on 01/08/2009
Why isn't the media picking up the point, that Burris is a Registered Lobbyest. One of his clients is Comcast, one of the biggest cable tv companies. The Senate has the responsiblity for various cable tv issues, and here would be a conflict of interest. I am also concerned about the monies he gave Blango and the fact he got $2950000 in state contracts to his construction consulting group. WTF, does he have other companies? Where are his financial records?

I believe I remember Senator Frist having conflict of interest issues regarding HCA Hospital. I believe he sold that share of the business and put the monies in a blind trust.
I really think someone needs to do something. Perhaps by posting this, someone will come along and investigate these Lobbying issues
http//www.propublica.org/article/blagos-senate-pick-burris-is-illinois-lobbyist-1230.
12:52 PM on 01/08/2009
How totally aberrant for this pathetic cowardly venal ignorant Congress. One of the Houses actually exercised its Constitutional preorogative? How weird is that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsws
No owning ideas. Limit only commercial use.
08:11 PM on 01/07/2009
Powell v. McCormack was a bad decision. The Constitution says that each house of Congress "shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" (Article I section 5), and the scotus said "no they shan't". The authority to judge includes the authority to make a judgment that someone else thinks is wrong. Otherwise, the someone-else is the judge. Yes, congresscritters make the call, then it's possible for a majority to make phony "judgments" that everyone of the other party wasn't elected. Likewise, if the scotus is the judge of it, they can file suit on their own behalf and "find" that they themselves were elected to all 535 seats. It's theoretically a problem, either way. The framers of the Constitution had to choose, and they did.

However, Powell v. McCormack is law. Fortunately, there is enough difference in the situations that it doesn't bind the Senate's hands too badly this time. In Powell, the respondents conceded that Adam Clayton Powell was duly elected. Here, Mr. Burris may not have been duly "elected". (The Constitution uses the word that way: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." Article I section 2) The IL SoS may not have authority to consider the fact that the process by which Mr. Burris was appointed was apparently a crime, but the Senate does.
09:26 AM on 01/07/2009
i think the trolls are mad that harry didn't live up to their predictions and back down.and the msm still can't except change . they don't know what to do with dems that stand and a president elect that doesn't allow them to dictate his behavior.
09:28 AM on 01/07/2009
and coleman did live down to the expectations.
08:25 AM on 01/07/2009
I am not even from the state of Illinois but this makes me angry. Roland Burris is man that has been told repeatedly by the people of Illinois through his unsuccessful attempts at running for their senator and governor that they do not want him representing their state. Now it seems they will have no choice but to have him as their senator and he doesn't care. Guided by his huge ego and crazy notions that he has been chosen by divine forces this little weasel is going to push his way in whether his constituents like it or not. The people of Illinois should make the decision of who will represent them since their governor is nothing but a self absorbed crook who cares nothing about them but only about himself and how he can get richer at their expense. If I were a resident of Illinois I would be irate!
02:49 AM on 01/07/2009
Interesting that Reid denied Burris the seat when he kept Lieberman in, even after campaigning against the the new president.

Naaaawww.... race couldn't be the issue?
05:34 AM on 01/07/2009
Obama himself wanted Lieberman to stay with the dems while he doesn't want Burris seated...so no race isn't the issue. You are an ignorant person.
12:57 PM on 01/07/2009
Because Obama wanted him seated doesn't mean that issue is not about race. You are an ignorant person.
01:20 AM on 01/07/2009
The heat that was on Gov. Blagojevich shaped his appointment. The fact that he chose a man of integrity was just a strategic move to attempt to assert his dwindling power.

Burris is now tainted by association.

I am very interested to see how it all unfolds, but personally I don't want Burris in the Senate now. If he wanted to be a senator he should have chosen another avenue.
01:27 AM on 01/07/2009
I think many people are coming on board with your type of think.

Burris has embarrassed him self with the circus he brought to town.
02:44 AM on 01/07/2009
The "circus" follow him into town. Burris should not be embarrased for being legally appointed to that position.

Keep going Burris!!!
03:22 AM on 01/07/2009
Burris was denied a seat in the senate b/c his papers were 'not in order', that according to he secretary of the senate. There is a problem with that assumption. His papers were deemed not in order arguing that it lacked a signature, the signature in question is that of the sec of state of Illinios, that argument by itself is reason why Burris will eventually be seated. There is also a legal precedent to attest to that. (re: Clayton Powell Jr.).
I am not sure if Burris was on the short list, but I would be terribly dissapointed in him if he was not and allowed himself to be used as a pawn in a political game that the gov appeares to be playing.
01:19 AM on 01/07/2009
Earth to Reid: He's Dem vote #59. SEAT HIM! We need the vote - why risk a special election?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Taxpayer-American
01:48 AM on 01/07/2009
Meh.

If a Republican wins the special election Reid could refuse to seat him too.
11:37 PM on 01/06/2009
Typical Reid when action could have been taking to prevent this, he advised the Illinois State Ledge not to have a special election.

Now, when he has no legal options, he is full of sound and fury, I think we all know what that signifies.

Then once Burris is seated and they could vote to expel him, I expect he will throw up his arms and say well there is nothing we can do now.
11:13 PM on 01/06/2009
I think Reid needs to be really careful about forcing a special election in IL. Patrick Fitzgerald's investigations are not over yet at all. They've just started. Tony Rezko is still singing from prison. Blago will cut deals to save his own skin and rat others out in the DEMOCRATIC party to Fitzgerald. There is a plethora of dirty Democrats in IL, a plethora (also Repubs but mostly DEMS since hey control the stare). By the time a forced special election rolls around there will be plenty of more DEMS going down.

PUBLIC opinion in IL could shift dramatically because of all the scandals yet to be revealed in IL against the DEMS. As far as I know Burris appears to be a clean politician. Which is probably why he never won a 'pay for play' election in IL. LOL. He was to 'clean' to win.
10:55 PM on 01/06/2009
The Senate is way out of pocket for turning away Senator Roland Burris today from his legal appointed senate seat.; and should at once reverse their decision and let him sit.
05:38 AM on 01/07/2009
If the Lt. Governor chooses to appoint Burris I'm sure the senate would then seat him.
10:54 PM on 01/06/2009
Blago is still the Gov'.

Blago chose Burris legally and according to Illinois LAW. Senators are not chosen in this case by polls and popular opinion.

Seat Burris, as it was all done according to law. You can't just change the law on the fly just because you don't like the outcome. The law is the law. Who do these guys think they are? Republicans?

I am not a huge fan of Burris but he is not a bad guy. Geez it is only two years, these guys all act like it is the end of the world. Where was all of this furvor from the Dems when the Bush/Cheney cabal actually broke many laws some of which resulted in the loss of human life? Let Bush and Cheney get off scott free without even a hearing but get worked up over THIS? Makes no sense.
05:40 AM on 01/07/2009
The Constitution makes the Senate the ultimate arbiter of a senator's qualification and election when it says, in Article I, Section 5, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DandaPanda
I am not a republican
09:16 AM on 01/07/2009
Marbury v Madison disagrees.
08:34 AM on 01/07/2009
Burris is a washed up opportunist. He wanted an innocent man executed for a murder he did not commit. We, the people of Illinois, needs competent representation, not a one man show of classical medival out-of-touch politics. GO HOME BURRIS!!!!!
10:36 PM on 01/06/2009
The Senate has a age problem. To many old men and too many ah just too many old women. These old folkes seem to be very Cranky and unfair.
09:21 AM on 01/07/2009
BURRIS OLDER THAN REID
10:30 PM on 01/06/2009
Blago should have been impeached by now (or at least started), and they said they were going to take away his appointment powers.

The legislature only has itself to blame.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carnelld
10:12 PM on 01/06/2009
If Reid and the Democratic Senate leadership can deny a Senator appointed by a Governor, to determine his fitness, what will happen when the Republicans get a majority. They play hard ball. They could hold up the credentialing process on any Senator (appointed or elected) to determine the fitness of the Senator. They might send the Senator's situation to the Rules Committe for further study.
This is a slipperry slope. Regardless of what happens, I think the courts should clarify this situation before the Republicans get back in the majority. Clearly, leadership is needed. Fienstein is correct. Maybe it is better that all the Democrats don't just go along to get along