It's Time for the Senate to Hold Its Nose and Seat Burris
Sometimes you just have to make chicken salad. Well, I don't, because I'm a vegetarian, but you know what I mean. Sometimes life throws you a curve at a bad time, and you just have to make the best of it. Yes, I'm talking to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
Look, I get it. Nobody was happier than I was on November 4 when Americans elected Barack Obama to be president, and vastly expanded Democratic control of the House and Senate. It was a triumphant moment, and I had a sense that after eight years of incompetence and disgrace, the "good guys" were finally going to be in charge.
My post-election high lasted through Obama's appointments, before crashing to a halt on December 9, when Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, announced at a press conference that the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, had been busted for, among other things, trying to sell Obama's vacant senate seat.
So I completely understand how much it both sucks and blows (as Bart Simpson would say) that Obama, who had run a flawless and honorable campaign, and was engaging in a successful transition, was now tossed into the middle of a scandal, even though he had done absolutely nothing wrong. And worse, how the reverberations and stink of Blagojevich's alleged corruption have continued to haunt the Democrats in Washington to this day.
To be clear, I fully supported the letter, signed by all of the Democratic senators, that majority leader Harry Reid sent to Blagojevich, informing him that any appointment he made would be tainted, and, as a result, anyone chosen by him would not be seated by the Senate. Reid, an old trial lawyer, knows how to put up a good front to try and intimidate someone into doing what he wants.
But two things jumped up to bite Reid on the butt. First, Blagojevich is such a full-on delusional egomaniac, that, if anything, the letter probably egged him on to actually make an appointment. I'll bet assuming that a politician would act rationally is a mistake Reid won't make again. Second, and more importantly, Blagojevich (or someone close to him, if such a person still exists) apparently had access to a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
As a result, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris, a 71-year-old former Illinois attorney general and comptroller, to fill the vacant senate seat.
Essentially, Blagojevich called Reid's bluff. You see, the first two paragraphs of Article 3, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution state:
"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.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 first key words are "Elections, Returns and Qualifications." There is no Illinois election in question, and Burris fulfills the qualifications to be appointed, since he was tapped by the sitting governor of his state (who is empowered under 17th Amendment to make the appointment) and, as Article 3 requires, is at least 30 years of age, has been a U.S. citizen for more than nine years, and is an inhabitant of Illinois. So, it would seem, the Senate has no authority under this clause to keep Burris from serving.
The second paragraph allows the Senate to expel a member, but the problem is that there is no evidence that Burris has done anything wrong. He wasn't one of the potential candidates swept up in the federal investigation of Blagojevich, and I'm quite sure you can't deny a seat to a senator just because he makes odd, grandiose statements like that his appointment was "what the Lord has ordained" (although it feels like you should be able to, no?).
Put another way, the Democrats in Washington have been backed into a corner by a soon-to-be-indicted governor with a fetish for his hairbrush. Reid made his stand, Blagojevich called him on it, and Burris showed up to the Senate, proclaiming, "Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois." Reid is now stuck. He made a big stink about Burris, but now he is left with not much of a case for excluding him and no strategic reason to fight. He is left depending on an issue as rickety as a missing secretary of state signature to keep Burris from serving.
That is the chicken, er, feces situation. Blagojevich has stuck the senate with an appointment that is tainted because it came from a seemingly epically corrupt governor. But Burris appears to be clean, and Blagojevich has the Constitution on his side. So what is the chicken salad? To paraphrase the comically inept Mark McGwire, whose worst moment in the public spotlight happened on Capitol Hill, I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the present. And the future. So seat Roland Burris and move on.
I say to Harry Reid, What is there worth fighting for here? Let Burris take the seat, and let's start trying to fix the Everest-sized pile of problems George W. Bush is leaving on Barack Obama's desk. There is no important principal to uphold. Is this the story you want dragging out over the next few weeks? What is the worst case scenario? Burris runs for re-election in 2010 and loses? If a Democrat loses a U.S. Senate race in Illinois, it will mean that things have gone horribly wrong in the next two years, and Roland Burris will be the least of the Democrats' problems.
Even Obama decided it would be best to let Burris serve. The guy has shown he has a pretty good sense of how to handle things. Now would be a good time to listen to him.
(As an aside, I am, on principal, refusing to address the claims, most prominently made by Rep. Bobby Rush, that there is any racial element to the Democrats' opposition to Burris's appointment. It is such a specious claim, and so unsupported by any facts, that it doesn't deserve to be addressed. I only make this note to make clear that I didn't forget about the issue, and I am not avoiding the issue, I just reject its relevance. To me, it's no different than not addressing that Burris was being opposed because his initials are R.B.)
Yes, thanks to Blagojevich, the Democrats in the Senate have been presented with a chicken feces situation. The best thing to do now is to make chicken salad, and that means swearing in Burris and moving on. Save the fight for something worthy, like if the courts overturn Al Franken's win in Minnesota.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, seat Burris, the law is on his side. Then treat him like a pariah. Relegate him to the most unimportant committees. Let it be known that any bill he sponsors will be DOA. Reduce federal funds for Illinois across the board. Refuse to do lunch with him. Assign him the worst office on Capitol Hill.
News flash: Roland Burris and Joe Lieberman are creating a new political party. It's called the Weasel Party of America. They've invited Joe the Plumber to be its national chairman.
Hate to say this Dixiepopulist but they will treat him like that anyway....
in an all white club. Trust me, They will treat Lieberman better than they treat Burris if only because
he's Jewish!
It seems like we (politics) are focused on the most innocuous things. He seems to be a reasonable candidate, a democrat who would be grateful..
When an amendment is made, it retracts or over-rides whatever else is in the Constitution. Amendment 17 over-rides the Senate's ability to keep a member from being seated about something that was done before he was appointed.
However, I am a Republican and love to point and giggle as the Democratic Party makes a mockery out of the process of democracy. We have survived many things since the first European landed in the Americas. We will survive a bunch of inept fools. The best we can hope for is that they get nothing done. Everytime they actually pass a bill, it is in the dilligent pursuit of spending more of the money of the middle class.
On the other hand, if budgets had to be sumitted to the people for approval, they would think more about NOT spending. In the states the referendum process has worked for almost 100 years. It is time to have some populist control of our government.
An amendment only AMENDS the specific points of law it addresses. It does not supersede anything.
amending can be a form of superseding. Look at examples of prohibition if you will (18th and 21st amendments). In effect, all new amendments supersede those that came before.
Changed my mind. I'll make ONE attempt to explain it.
Our system's designed believing each of three branches would be a "check" on the others. For that to occur there must be "balance." Each branch must be autonomous and possess unlimited authority within its own sphere
Though the authority of each is virtually unlimited each has strengths and weaknesses. All three were expected to constantly contest for supremacy and self-interest alone would ensure they'd strive, not only for supremacy, but to keep the OTHER two FROM gaining supremacy.
Unfortunately, we've a Constitutional crisis, a Congress unable to stand on its hind legs (that would require a backbone.) So we've the "Unitary Executive" and a president who thinks he can do anything if he says its "National Security," and an "Activist Court" who believe they can dictate anything if they say "unconstit
Simple solution. Each branch, being autonomous, can simply ignore unconstitutional directives from another. (They can also ignore constitutional ones. See "Unitary Executive," "Activist Court" above; also, "absence of backbone."
So, yes, Congress has the right to make its own rules and enforce them. And, no, caving in fear of the Court IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Once again: BACKBONE people.
Now just what is it about that that is so hard to understand?
It is wrong. If it worked the way you explained it there would be no checks and balances only chaos. We experienced part of that with Bush ignoring legislation that he did not like and putting signing statements to castrate laws placed upon his desk. When subpoenaed they refuse to show or testify. how is that a system of checks and balances.
Even if the hogwash you stated was true, none of our legal premises allow laws and rules to be enforced arbitrarily. I can not set limits and tests that I do not require others to pass. Blogojevich is currently under suspicion. No indictment, or impeachment. He is not Burris. The Senate already set their internal standard for legal acceptability in the Senate when they allowed Ted Stevens to stay in the Senate and vote after he had been convicted on 7 felonies. To now say that suspicion of wrongdoing by the appointer somehow attaches itself to the appointee and is disqualifying. Vitter has already admitted to participating in crime and was not even admonished.
Checks and balances means that authority crosses boundaries between the three branches which keeps any on branch from trying to acquire ultimate power. Read a book.
Our laws are constantly enforced arbitrarily. Have you been in a coma the past eight years? Bush is President because of arbitrary Supreme Court decisions in 2000.
And how've those "boundaries" kept Bush from claiming "Unitary Executive" authority? Kept the Court from claiming "all things Constitutional" their EXCLUSIVE domain?
The founders recognized "the honor system" wouldn't work to restrain abuse of power. The three branches are "kings." Just WHO is going to stop them? The founders knew that. They attempted to create a system where they would stop each other, and have the power to do so.
All three branches get their authority from the Constitution. All power flows from the Constitution. If the Court is the sole judge of what's "Constitutional" and whether it has "jurisdiction," then the Court RUNS THE GOVERNMENT and nothing can be done without Court approval.
If the President can do anything as Commander In Chief in time of war, and HE gets to decide IF we're "at war," then HE runs the government. And he can do anything he wants including deciding that the Court has no say. The same applies if the President can cloak his acts under "National Security" and he alone decides what is "national security," who is "authorized" to be informed.
How do you fail to see that those positions are contradictory and unconstitutional? That they're power grabs, and the odd man out is Congress?
Preventing chaos is why each branch has unique exclusive powers.
The Court and The President depend on Congressional funding and have no other means finance. The Court and Congress depend on the President to enforce their directives and defend them, they've no means to do so themselves. And the Court is the tie-breaker. The weakest branch. Its supposed to prevent gridlock not seize control of government for itself.
Now it's really time for the Democrats to cut bait and run. Grin and bear it, folks, and hope Blago is caught through the legislative or legal process.
There is indeed an "election" in question, as the Constitution uses that word: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
From a legal point of view, your argument doesn't hold water. First of all, the 17th Amendment set the replacement procedure, which calls for elections, but until there is an election, appointments. So there is no argument that the process (aside from Blagojevich's arrest) was properly followed.
Either Burris gained his seat by corrupt methods and should not be seated, or he is as clean as you or I and should be allowed to take the oath. It's as simple as that.
"Your argument is that the Senate should engage in protracted litigation to make a long-short argument to deny Burris his seat. In my opinion, that would be a huge blunder."
No. My argument is that nothing in the Constitution compels the Senate to binding arbitration by the Supreme Court. The Senate is not subservient to the Court, making it so is an unconstitutional expansion of the Court's powers.
"First of all, there is so little to gain. What is at stake? What larger, precedent-setting principal is this fight over? And will this expansion of Constitutional power benefit the country in the long run?"
That's why we had Bush for the last eight years. We keep seating corrupt politicians, one at a time. Which is why government is full of them. Maybe you're waiting until we can reject them in job-lots. Unfortunately, they usually come one at a time. And if you can't see why not seating a man who'd use his official office to attempt to kill for private gain, why maintaining Congressional autonomy instead of the Court deciding Senate rules is a "larger, precedent-setting principal" worth fighting over, then I doubt that I can explain it to you.
The whole point of having a Supreme Court is to compel the Senate in legal manners. Ours is a common law system, not a Napoleonic code. It's not an "unconstitutional" expansion of powers, it's exactly what the Constitution says. The corresponding power of the Senate over the Court is approval and impeachment.
"The whole point of having a Supreme Court " is to provide an unbiased, apolitical, OBJECTIVE arbitrator between the other two branches and the government and the people.
How the Supreme Courts functions is the Court's business alone. It must be to maintain it as unbiased and apolitical.
How the Congress functions is the Congresses Business alone. It must be to prevent outside influence over its deliberations.
How the Executive functions is the Presidents business alone. It must be to avoid undue influence interfering with equitable execution of the policy and the law.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given ANY authority over Congress or the President. The Court is trying to GRAB that authority and seize control of government. Since the ENTIRE government is based upon the Constitution, if the Court gets away with being the sole judge of what's "constitutional" and whether the Court itself has "jurisdiction," then nothing can be done without Court approval.
And then, we no longer have three branches of government. We have the Supreme Court and the two branches of government who work for it.
"The corresponding power of the Senate over the Court is approval and impeachmen
The power of impeachment is because Supreme Court Justices are LIFETIME appointments. There has to be SOME way to remove one in extremis. And if the Court had authority over the Senate the Senate wouldn't HAVE impeachment power. If all the Court has to do is decide an impeachment is "unconstitutional" then only THE COURT could impeach with the CONSENT of the Senate.
How much harm (or good) can a solitary senator do in the two years in the US senate? Under the guise of doing it the 'demcratic way', some TV commentators suggest an election now to fill the vacant seat. This is another example of wasted tax-payers money and lobbyist dollars. The only winners are the TV and advertising industry. Kudos to Gov Blago for making-up his mind. Gov. Patterson of NY is still waffling with the NY press and pundits having a field day. I think Senator Reid is doing the right thing, after the logic from Senator Feinstein. Obviously this senate does not want to go into the history books, with a racially-tinged precedence.
Roland Burris abused his official authority to try and kill a man for personal gain. The Rolando Cruz scandal resulted in the people of Illinois rejecting Burris for every office he's run for since.
But abusing official authority trying to kill for personal gain isn't a sign of corruption "worthy of expulsion.
The Governor legally appointed him. The fact that the Senate just as legally has the right to refuse him somehow doesn't matter. The law is the law (sometimes
The people of Illinois can't be disenfranchised by refusing him. The fact that the people of Illinois have been rejecting him for 14 years clearly means we REALLY want him as our Senator.
Of course the timing IS all wrong. We can't expect our representatives in government to actually represent us if its going to be INCONVENIENT.
So let's seat another corrupt politician undemocratically appointed by another corrupt politician rather than have our Senators actually meet their responsibilities, perform their obligations, and represent the public interest.
If we unreasonably expect them to take a principled stand they could be held accountable! Far better to avoid accountability, refuse to make any tough calls and seat one more corrupt politician. How else will we ever see change in Washington
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
LewDan, I beg you, read the Constitution.
This statement:
"The fact that the Senate just as legally has the right to refuse him somehow doesn't matter."
is just plain wrong.
If it was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the Senate had the absolute power you say it does, Burris wouldn't have come to D.C., and Reid would have exercised that power. Why did Burris show up and why is Reid caving? Because ... the Senate doesn't have the power to reject a candidate because they feel like it.
Read Article 3!
Article 1, Section 5
see:
How the Senate Can Stop Blagojevich http://www
By Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz
Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale and the author of America's Constitution: A Biography. Josh Chafetz is assistant professor of law at Cornell Law School and the author of Democracy's Privileged Few: Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions.
The only way I can fathom the idea that people aren't 100% against Burris being seated is the intangibility to the meat and potatoes people among us of what such a position in the Senate signifies. I will therefore phrase the issue in terms of meat (and may bring potatoes in later):
Suppose there was a problem with contaminated meat being sold to the public. During this contaminated meat problem, someone has the task of hiring the person who will determine the rules about whether the meat is contaminated. The person doing the hiring is on tape saying that, given the huge amount of money at stake depending on whether some meat is banned, he will accept bribes regarding who he hires. He then hires someone, someone who might very well be concerned about protecting us from contaminated meat, for all we know. Now: go to the supermarket and buy some meat. I dare you.
Huzzahs to you for this post! You put in simplistic and effective language what it took several paragraphs for the "experts" to say!
Obama spent a lot of time with Blago. Will you be holding your nose at the inauguration? Do you really want to eliminate everyone who ever had anything to do with the Governor?
The only person that really needs to go is Reid.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
websmith, Obama was elected by the American people. Burris was appointed (to an elected position) by Blagojevich. You really can't compare the two.
I will be ecstatic watching Obama's inauguration.
I think Burris should be seated for the reasons I outline above, but it stinks, for the people of Illinois and for the country.
The only good thing Blago ever did was to appoint Burris. And that was an accident. We will all find out just how wonderful Burris is.
If you like Obama you will like Burris.
Obama is at the perfect time in his life for great things
Burris is also at the perfect time in his life for something somewhat similar.
This happens because Obama and Burris are born EXACTLY twenty four years apart.
Stop worrying. Let both of them get to work.
You missed websmith's point, which was that Burris is being tarred by guilt by association, which certainly could include Obama. Which is why it is widely regarded as an unjust principle.
Actually even if Burris decides to run again in 2010 and the Senate Dems don't much care for this, they can always find another Democrat they do prefer to run against Burris in the primary election and support that candidate. So this whole ordeal is really about nada, zip and is mostly all bluster. The Dems came away with egg on their faces yet again. When will it ever stop?
RJ Crane, topplebush
Eaxactly. There was no need for all this non sense from Demos and Reid. Change the laws in Ill and make all uniform, re- relection and no appointments. Obey the law now. Seat the man. End the games.
Too late to change laws now as far as no re-election for Burris goes.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
He seems to have a clear record and isn't likely to be elected, so why not?
You put the narrowest possible interpretation on "qualification", much more so than the papers of the Founding Fathers indicated that they intended. The broad language also indicates that they intended the houses to make those decisions without interference from the other branches of the government. That was "original intent" and it is still good policy.
Why not? My guess is his speaking ability (or lack of it) and his voice, not exactly compelling, though very soothing.
Personally, I think the issue should NOT be the seating of Burris but, rather, the UNseating of Harry Reid from his position as Senate majority leader - - and the same goes for Pelosi in the House. BOTH are leftist extremists and will constantly be throwing obstructionist roadblocks at centrist and bipartisan legislation - - and probably nitpicking Obama at every turn.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Wow, TEPK. You mean the same Reid and Pelosi that caved in to every wish and desire of George W. Bush the last two years? Yeah, that was really left-wing obstructionist.
Seriously, before commenting, make sure you have your facts straight. Come up with at least some "leftist extremist" acts before spouting that kind of garbage.
My point is Reid and Pelosi are clearly representative of the far left of the Democratic Party - - and it's clear many on the far left of the Democratic Party are NOT happy with several of Obama's proposed appointments, some of the policy statements he's made and some of his choices, e.g., Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration. Clearly, some of those have decried what appears to be Obama's "centrism" - maybe a "centrism" similar to that of Hillary Clinton's. So, my simple point is that if Reid and Pelosi are intent on pushing extremely liberal agendas - and if Obama is, in fact, going to be what I hope will be a philosophical centrist - I believe there is little doubt that extreme leftwingers in the House and Senate might attempt to thwart centrist measures in favor of more liberal agendas.
There were Democrats in the House and Senate who were clearly uncooperative with Jimmy Carter 30+ years ago - - so, it would NOT be a precedent now for the Democratic House and/or Senate leadership to oppose a Democratic president on purely political grounds.
I'm hoping Obama will be a "traditionalist", a "moderate", a reasoned "middle-of
And, NOTHING you write could EVER possibly be construed as "garbage", now, could it?
Your response is strictly "no class" - like one that
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
