Please Dems, Obey the Law

The recent upset and political theatre over the appointment and seating of the Junior Senator Rolland Burris (D-Ill) made me cringe. As I sat and watched the latest drama on the Hill play out for the media there to gobble up the fodder, as I heard of Senator Burris being turned away by the Secretary of the Senate, his credentials not accepted, I thought, "please Democrats, don't be like the Neocons, don't be like the Republicans, don't ignore reality."

And yet, they did as they turned him away, they ignored Constitutional reality. Washington made a fever pitch assault on the document from 2000 to 2008, and it would appear 2009 started with it being walked over as well.

I grow weary of politicians from both sides, hell, Americans for that matter as a whole, ignoring the basic facts of our system and our nation, and at times, of our very nature.

The reality is, political appointments, some based in favors, are a reality and always have been and even the founders knew it.

"It wasn't until 1913 that the people were even given the chance to elect their own senators," historian, author and friend Kenneth C. Davis recently told me. "The founders thought the position far too important to leave to the mob, so to speak"

And as to the question as to whom would likely be appointed?

"It was presumed at the time the country was founded and some time thereafter that the people that populated public office would be, basically, like each other," he went on. "There were voting requirements, you often had to own property; a certain level of education and society and certainly race was simply presumed to be considered for public office and those in the halls tended to look like each other."

In other words, rich White men ran things and presumed to know best as to whom should populate the coveted two seats from each state in the Senate. After all, the Senate was a fixed body, Constitutionally, two from each state, period end. No debate.

Just like the XVII Amendment to the Constitution, it's pretty clear, too.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution passed the Senate on June 12, 1911 and the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912. The states completed ratification on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3 of the Constitution. That means that each state's Senators were no longer to be anointed or chosen by the state's legislature but would be elected by the people. It also has the clause that is bothering the Democrats about Illinois AND it, would seam, Massachusetts, that said the state's governor, if so authorized by that state's legislature, would appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy, until an election is held to fill the vacancy.

Illinois is a state whose legislature Constitutionally allows their Governor to pick their Senator in this case.

Reality: Rob Blagojevich is the seated Governor of Illinois. He has not been impeached. He has not been removed from office. He has not been indicted, in fact, that investigation has now been "given more time" to gather evidence. Open and shut case? We'll see. But in the mean time, the reality is, this is legal.

So obey the law Democrats. Do what the PEOPLE want for a change whether YOU like it or not. We want OUR business to be done, and it wasn't that day, the day Mr. Burris went to Washington. Every moment spent discussing this in private was a moment not spent discussing the bleeding, dying economy, the swindling of the taxpayers by huge corporations and banks, looming double digit unemployment, war in the Middle East just a block or two from a country currently occupyied, the business of the United States Senate. It has woefully been ignored and while the Senate slept, Rome burned. The election of 2008 was billed as a wakeup call for change. On January 6, 2009 the 111th Senate was sleepwalking.

Your instructions are clear. The only qualifications to be a Senator (or President) are age and residency, and Burris mets them being 71 and a resident of Illinois. Reality. There are no resumé requirements in the Constitution of the United States or States in general for the legislature. Yes, they have the right to govern the actions of and membership in their bodies, but those rights must follow the law. They cannot deny membership simply because they a: don't feel like it b: don't like the guy or gal; or c: don't like the person that legally appointed him or her (or the people that elected them for that matter). To do so is to break the law, which they did that day, January 6, 2009, the first day of the Senate by turning Burris away. Stop it.

That's right, 99 members of the Senate either agreed with or turned away as senior leadership broke the law on international television, and I, for one, grow weary of that. Not only because it's simply wrong, but also because it distracts from real issues.

Sen. Burris will be seated and must because it's the law. But so far the Democrats, unfortunately, have been like their predecessors and have ignored the Constitution when they needed to, wanted to or it made it more convenient. They asked for guarantees he would not run again. There should have been no guarantees from this man. No one has to pledge one damn thing to any party about their possible reelection to legally occupy a Senate seat. To broker that is as horrifying as what the man that appointed him stands accused. Pay for play. You want to play in the Senate, agree to our terms? If after his LEGAL term the people of the state of Illinois wish to elect a 73-year-old let them and you shut up about it. In the mean time the law requires he be treated like every other legally elected or appointed official.

To do otherwise was and is unlawful, unconstitutional and just bad sport. It was and is to imply the person is tainted because of their association with an as-of-this-writing fully legal and seated Governor.

Reality is often inconvenient and the truth often hard to accept. Many Americans at the beginning of 2009 started the year with less personal wealth, some without homes or jobs, many in fear of the same and none with a clear picture of where their country was or is going to end up. That's reality.

The founders gave us documents to help us through tough times. To remove questions such as these in matters like this so the people's work could be done.

Most Republicans, Neocons AND Democrats let the nation down, let We, the People down for eight years. If the first day of the Senate was any indication, the only Change that went to Washington was on monogrammed towels or name plates on doors and stationary.

Otherwise, January 6, 2009 was business as usual for the 111th Senate; Unconstitutional, shameful, unnecessary business and We, the People were not better for it.

Comments

[balrog221]

there is truth in this Gerald Ford became President even though he was appointed by Nixon.

[LeftRight]

That's a completely different point, since the 25th Amendment REQUIRED Nixon to appoint someone after Agnew stepped down, and Ford accepted Nixon's request to do the job.

[eka15]

Akil Reed Amar, a Yale Law professor and one of the most brilliant Constitutional scholars of our time, says differently:

http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/

I don't think you can top that argument.

[carnelld]

There are some basic fundamental questions that should be answered. 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. Just the idea of Saxby Chambliss(Georgia), John Mcain, Richard Shelby(Alabama), et al, making the decisions as to who is suitable for the Senate is a disturbing proposition.
This is a slippery 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. Obama made a mistake agreeing with the Senate leadership. He is attempting to be a team player, but look at his team. With Reid, Durbin, Emanuelle, Barney Frank(House of Representatives), etc who will give good sound advice.

[maddie0001]

Sitting Senators that have been indicted:

The Republicans:
Ted Stevens R Al 2009
Kay Bailey Hutchinson R Tex 1994
David Durenberger, R-Minn 1993
Edward Gurney, R-Fla 1976
Truman Newberry, R-Mich 1920
John Hipple Mitchell, R-Ore.: In July 1905
Joseph Burton, R-Kan 1904
Charles Dietrich, R-Neb 1904

Democrats:
Burton Wheeler, D-Mont 1924
Harrison Williams Jr., D-N.J 1981

Were any of these people thrown out of the party?

[LewDan]

"Yes, they have the right to govern the actions of and membership in their bodies, but those rights must follow the law. They cannot deny membership simply because they a: don't feel like it b: don't like the guy or gal; or c: don't like the person that legally appointed him or her (or the people that elected them for that matter)."

Exactly where in the Constitution are the limitations you claim on the Senate's right to govern its membership?

The Senate IS obeying the law. Its just not obeying YOU.

[coweatyou]

Article 1, section 5, clause 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

The only way to remove a senator (as they look to be attempting to do) is with a vote of 2/3 of the senate to expel the member. They have no right to refuse to seat a Senator rightfully selected by a state under the 17th Amendment. This is a clear violation of the federalist process laid out in the Constitution.

[LeftRight]

EXACTLY!!!!! If they don't want him there the only recourse available is to let him take his legally appointed seat in the Senate, and then convince every Democrat (save one...... ) and several Republicans vote to kick him out!! Either that or SHUT UP and let him have his seat and do his job!!! He won't get re-elected in 2010 anyway!

[LeftRight]

The SCOTUS determined that the only reason that either the House or the Senate can turn someone away without their seat is if they do not meet the basic requirements of the job. In the case of the Senate, that means you must be at least 30 years old and a resident of the state from which you are elected. Since Burris is 71 and an IL resident, they have no leg to stand on in keeping him from his seat.

Now then, they DO have the authority to seat him and then EXPEL him with a 2/3 vote, but to do that they still MUST seat him first!

[lynettema]

"as I heard of Senator Burris being turned away by the Secretary of the Senate, his credentials not accepted, I thought, "please Democrats, don't be like the Neocons, don't be like the Republicans, don't ignore reality."

That is exactly what the Senate is attempting - not to act like Neocons and seat unscrupulous people. Burris by his very actions in this issue and accepting the appointment from and indicted governor puts him in the same corrupt category. Maybe you should be researching the ties this guy has to Blago instead of holding him up as some saint just because he is black.

[sankofaman]

The governor is NOT indicted yet. Repeat NOT indicted. Refer to article above.

[StopBadSurfing]

Amen. Either the law is obeyed or it isn't. If our elected officials, who are in the best position to understand and interpret the laws, won't obey them, why should the public?

If this stands, what is to keep Harry Reid or some Republican Senator in the future from "preventing the seating" of a duly elected or appointed Senator in the future?

This is truly the "age of law's end" -- the Dharma ending period.

[sd4david]

I agree with you. Say they aren't happy, then seat the guy. Let the votes decide in 2 years if they want to elect him for a full term.
Spell check doesn't catch all errors. You needed "seem", not "seam".

It also has the clause that is bothering the Democrats about Illinois AND it, would seam, Massachusetts, that said the state's governor, if so authorized by that state's legislature, would appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy, until an election is held to fill the vacancy.

[LeftRight]

You are mostly correct, Charles. Yes, Roland Burris is the legally appointed Senator from the state of Illinois. Yes, until such time as the Governor is impeached and convicted he has every legal right to appoint the man, and YES, the Senate Democrats should have seated Roland Burris. HOWEVER, you say that the fact that they can make their own membership rules is unimportant, and that is plain wrong. The Senate may, if 2/3 of its members so vote, throw ANY member out, for ANY reason, even if the only reason is that they don't like him. He can then be re-elected or appointed, and they would have to go through with it again, but if they wanted him out they should have seated him and then voted to kick him out, rather than simply refuse to seat him.

[Poboy]

"HOWEVER, you say that the fact that they can make their own membership rules is unimportant, and that is plain wrong. The Senate may, if 2/3 of its members so vote, throw ANY member out, for ANY reason, even if the only reason is that they don't like him."

From Senate history, there is NO reason to believe that the Senate would vote out a member for NO REASON.

AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm

[LeftRight]

I didn't say that they WOULD, I said that they CAN! I also said that they should just shut up and put Burris into his Senate seat!!