Posted on 01/01/2009 2:31:56 PM PST by STARWISE
U.S. senators are in for a major fight if they intend to follow through with threats to bar Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment from replacing President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate next week, say legal scholars, political analysts and even some elected officials.
The current 50-member Senate Democratic caucus had urged Blagojevich not to appoint former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the job while Blagojevich is under the cloud of a possible indictment and impeachment for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. He ignored the request.
Now the entire campaign to de-legitimize Blagojevich is getting harder for U.S. senators and the U.S. attorney handling the case to make, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and others told FOXNews.com.
"There is no question that (Burris) is the legitimate successor to Barack Obama. There is no controversy here as a matter of law. The controversy is purely political. People simply don't like the governor who appointed him," Turley said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
~~~”I’m surprised by it, because at the press conference he made this out to be the world’s strongest criminal case,” he said....... PING!
"Reid's claim of authority to prevent Burris, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, from entering the chamber derives from
***Article 1 Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution. The section says each chamber
"shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."
Burris may be a Chicago hack politician himself, but I think that he should be seated. He is certainly no worse than current senatorial incumbents, and there is nothing in the Constitution or the law which says that he cannot serve.
Furthermore, why should he be inconvenienced just to enable the Democrats to fain horror at the governor’s alleged misdeeds?
No question he should be seated from a legal standpoint. Absolutely ridiculous if the Democrats do not. It’s not like there is an election in question.
Let's see what eloquence can do.
This is fun to watch... :-)
I think Fitz spung this trap early to make sure that Obama and gang didn't get caught in it. The problem was that limited the amount of evidence available against Blago.
Happy New Year Star. Just in... lotta catching up to do.
Make sure you check:
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com
http://capitalfax.blogspot.com
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com
http://baarswestside.blogspot.com
Consider the sources.
Gotta unpack and check emails, back later.
So re: Obama, though national, qualifications, vetting?
Quid Pro Quo
I think qualifications are minimal, age 30 etc. Moral turpitude, maybe but that would bar guys like Teddy and probably a thousand past members. That really leaves election and can they beg the question of Blago’s authority? All in all, I guess one would have to get down to cases.
I just hope the Republicans aren't so stupid that they screw this gift up.
Blago lovers of the right Unite!
1-1-09 | Ancient Drive
Posted on 01/01/2009 1:12:05 AM PST by Ancient Drive
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2157112/posts
Thanks!
I’ll say ... what, no mainstream media coverage on this in 2006? I’m shocked ... /s
STARWISE wrote:Unfortunatly, the courts have interpreted that clause to be limited to the constitutionally defined qualifications.
***Article 1 Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution. The section says each chamber"shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."
The case was Powell v. McCormack, and SCOTUS ruled this way in it's decision:
Burris is over 30, and meets the citizenship requirement. They won't be able to find him unqualified.
In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution.
They could seat him, then expel him with a 2/3rds vote. But Burris hasn't done anything wrong, and it's doubtful that the Republicans would expel him for purely political reasons.
Or they could use their Article 1 Section 5 powers to exclude him for problems with the "election" and "returns." To do that, they should have to prove that there was corruption involved in his appointment.
This should go down as the most ignorant statement of 2009. "matter of law"? What law says the Burris should succeed Obammy?
We don’t know all the fact, so this continues to be speculation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.