Jim Warren on Hardball was just talking about how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is likely to not stand in the way of Roland Burris taking his U.S. Senate seat, as long as Burris agrees not to run for the seat in the 2010 election. Reid was said to be concerned that Burris and the circumstances of his current appointment might make him a poor candidate in 2010. Reid had already signaled, over the weekend, that he was willing to "negotiate" with Burris about this.
I hope Burris does nothing of the sort. He was appointed to the seat by a sitting governor, as per the laws of the state of Illinois. Who, exactly, is Reid, or anyone, to demand that Burris negotiate for that seat, and attempt to exact a price or a promise in return for his taking that seat?
As I've been saying in several posts about Rod Blagojevich, he has been charged with a crime. He has not been indicted, or impeached, or found guilty in a trial in either case. Meanwhile, Prosecutor Fitzgerald has asked for more time, to put together his case against Blagojevich. That's fine - but is the state of Illinois to be put on hold while a Prosecutor is getting his case in order, before it has even been presented to a grand jury for possible indictment?
This is why we have laws in this country - to regulate how we proceed, rather than proceeding on the basis of what we think we know to be true. Harry Reid may think that Blagojevich is guilty, and Reid may be right. But the law has no provision for the exercise of these unproven thoughts, and until these charges are considered by a grand jury, in a court of law, and/or by the state government of Illinois for possible impeachment and trial, Reid should stop obstructing the law. (Even if Blagojevich is ultimately removed from office, he was still the duly elected Governor of Illinois when he made the appointment.) Wheeling and dealing about seating a duly appointed Senator, for political reasons, to improve the Democratic Party's chances of winning in 2010, is not much better than what Blagojevich has been accused of. Not to mention that, for all we know, Roland Burris may be prove to be a strong candidate in 2010, after all.
*Note added January 6, 2009: Roland Burris was turned away from the Senate this morning. The reason given was that his paperwork was incomplete - his appointment had not been "certified" by the Illinois Secretary State. But absent any explanation of why the appointment made by a sitting governor is illegal - what law was violated in Burris' appointment - the Illinois Secretary of State's action, and the US Senate's, remains an affront to our rule of law.
6 comments:
Paul,
You are correct. In fact if anyone is Guilty of anything it is those that voted for a bailout bill that originated in the Senate.
All bills of revenue have to originate in the House thus all that voted for it are in violation of their oaths and should be impeached.
Fred
Paul--
I can't make any judgment about whether Harry Reid has any "business" blocking Roland Burris' entry to the Senate, as "business" is kind of an amiguous term. It sounds to me like you're just unhappy with the prospect.
But Harry Reid has the right and the authority to block Burris' entry, according to the rules of the United States Senate, constitutionally a self-governing body. He also has (and this, I admit, is merely my opinion) the duty to do so, although this duty is more political than civic.
Burris does not, according to Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate, have the required certification from the Illinois Attorney General. Without this, he is not authorized to act as a US Senator.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Reid has the authority to block Burris' entry. As Senate Majority Leader, Reid has the duty to see that the best (most electable) party completes Obama's term.
--Peter
Fred, you're right about the origin of revenue bills. That's yet another violation of the Constitution, adding to a much more grievous list that includes going to war without a Declaration, passing legislation that violates the First Amendment, etc.
Peter - here's what I see as the crux of this matter: Of course the Senate has the right not to seat someone, even if elected, let alone appointed, if the Senate finds something illegal about the election or the appointment. And the Illinois Secretary of State does have the right not to certify the results of an election or an appointment, for the same reason.
But what was illegal about Burris' appointment? Surely, not that Blago was accused of a crime? Indeed, even if he's impeached, until he's found guilty in the subsequent trial, and legally removed from office, he is still the duly elected governor, and therefore entitled to exercise the powers of his office.
Therefore, Reid has no business interfering with this process, and stopping Burris from being seated, or negotiating with Burris. I'm not "merely unhappy" about that - to the contrary, I'm unhappy specifically and explicitly because it is a threat to our democratic, legal process.
Good post.
I get into why Reid is doing what he is doing here and how the Dems are faking integrity in their refusal to seat Burris.
I feel bad for Burris, he has done nothing wrong, and is certainly qualified to sit in the Senate. The guy shows up for work today and is basically pushed out the door, almost physically. Harry Reid even said on Meet the Press "WE decide who sits in the Senate." No you don't Harry. This guy is dilusional. Seat Burris.
Thanks for the link, shockedDot. It looks as if Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) is doing the right thing, and will support Burris's seating in her capacity as head of the Rules Committee.
Hey, BigFrank - Happy New Year!
I'd like to see Reid voted out as Majority Leader.
Post a Comment