Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that Congress cannot refuse to seat a duly-choosen member for reasons other than the person not having the Constitutional requirements for the office (in this case, over age 30, a U.S. citizen, and a resident of Illinois), it seems the only recourse Harry Reid has to stop Burris from being Senator would be to swear him in and then immediately have the Senate vote by 2/3rds majority to expel him. I’d love to see them try that, watch the RATs throw out a “respected elder statesman” of the Illinois Dems who is the first black to hold statewide office and has has never personally been accused of any wrongdoing.
Post #106 said it perfectly, if the Senate rejects Burris, Blago should select Oprah to fill the seat next, and then Mayor Richie Daley of Chicago, and then Michelle Obama... just keep going down the list of every icon of the Chicago Dem machine and start naming them one by one and watch the Dems eat their own.
You can’t pay for entertainment this good. The Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate have really screwed themselves by allowing RAT corruption to fester in Chicago so long.
And the icing on the cake? Even if Blago is impeached and is put on trial, he can STILL exercise his full powers as governor and appoint whoever he wants. The Illinois Senate would have to PROVE wrongdoing and vote to REMOVE him.
Until then, he’s the boss.
The Illinois General Assembly has the power to pass legislation stripping the Governor of his appointment power and arrange a special election instead (of course the Governor would have to sign such a bill, but Blago had indicated that he WOULD have supported such a special election).
The Illinois General Assembly HAD that power, now it is too late. Once Obama resigned from the Senate, any law passed would have been unconstitutional. Now if the Senate refuses to seat Burris, Illinois will not have a Senator until 2011.
***
I agree - except that I think he will be seated.
MAJOR constitutional questions here - if the Illinois General Assembly passes a retroactive law, or if the U.S Senate refuses to seat Burris ...
Illinois Constitution, Section 16: Ex Post Facto Laws And Impairing Contracts:
“No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special
privileges or immunities, shall be passed.”
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486 (1969):
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
“In November, 1966, petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected from the 18th Congressional District of New York to serve in the United States House of Representatives for the 90th Congress. However, pursuant to a House resolution, he was not permitted to take his seat. Powell (and some of the voters of his district) then filed suit in Federal District Court, claiming that the House could exclude him only if it found he failed to meet the standing requirements of age, citizenship, and residence contained in Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution — requirements the House specifically found Powell met — and thus had excluded him unconstitutionally. The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint “for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.” A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, although on somewhat different grounds, each judge filing a separate opinion. We have determined that it was error to dismiss the complaint, and that petitioner Powell is entitled to a declaratory judgment that he was unlawfully excluded from the 90th Congress.”
If Burris is denied by the U.S. Senate, I believe that he may find relief at SCOTUS. He would probably cite the Powell decision and (possibly) 14th Amendment violations (due process and equal protection), since he has not committed any infraction and that the appointment was made by a sitting governor who was not convicted of anything at the time of the appointment.
Yes, you would think this would be ex post facto. Of course, rules, constitutions, laws don’t mean anything to Dems.