Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Senate running out of reasons not to seat Burris

By

Here’s the Secretary’s statement:

The certificate did not comply with Senate Rule II in that it lacked both the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, and the Seal of the State of Illinois.

But here are the relevant parts of Rule II (emphasis mine):


… 2. The Secretary shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed.

3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit.

THE RECOMMENDED FORMS FOR CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

…

CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT

To the President of the Senate of the United States:

This is to certify that, pursuant to the power vested in me by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of _, I, A_ B__, the governor of said State, do hereby appoint C__ D__ a Senator from said State to represent said State in the Senate of the United States until the vacancy therein caused by the _ of E_ F__, is filled by election as provided by law.

Witness: His excellency our governor _, and our seal hereto affixed at __ this _ day of _, in the year of our Lord 19__.

By the governor:

G__ H__,

Governor.

I__ J__,

Secretary of State.

Note the repeated use of the word “recommended,” which, at least to me, means “not required.”  That is confirmed by the Rule’s reference to sending these “recommended” forms out to the states so that state officials can use them “if they see fit.”  Yes, there is a reference to the signature of the Secretaries of State in paragraph (2), but that paragraph imposes a requirement on the Secretary of the Senate (namely, to keep certain records), not on state officials to follow certain procedures, and it nowhere says that the Secretary of State must countersign the document in order for it to be valid.

Also, the Rule doesn’t say a thing about the state seal — there’s a reference to a seal on the “recommended” form, but it’s clearly not required by the rule.  

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Chair of the Senate Rules Committee (which will eventually handle this mess), has now publicly stated that Burris should be seated.  (Josh Marshall agrees, for what that’s worth.)  Come on, Harry — just seat the guy.  He hasn’t done anything wrong, and there are far more important things to worry about than this.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …paragraph 2 to require both signatures, while the recommendation refers to the specific forms.  That said, he should be seated as his appointment is legal.

    • David, I think Christopher is right. Section 2 contains the requirements; section 3 suggests a form that can be used to meet the requirements. That being said, the Secretary of State can surely be compelled to sign, so I agree, as I’ve previously said, that the Senate must seat Burris.

      <

      p>TedF

      • It’s a very elliptical way of imposing a requirement.  It may be what is expected in most cases, but that’s not the same as a requirement.  

        <

        p>In any event, it’s a moot point — a deal has been struck, and Burris will be seated.  Thank goodness.  And isn’t this the most pathetic part of it?

        <

        p>

        Senior Democratic officials are now saying that there is a growing sense among Senate Democrats and advisers to Mr. Obama that Mr. Burris should ultimately be seated, as long as it can be done in a face-saving way for Democrats who had initially said they would block the appointment.

        <

        p>If these dickheads had done any homework before shooting their mouths off, we wouldn’t have these ridiculous concerns.

  2. Eating crow doesn’t taste good, but sometimes you get beaten.  Just play through and seat Burris.

  3. If recommended means “not necessary”, to me that means that it is the judgment of the Secretary of the Senate.  Or, it means that any schlemiel can walk off the street and demand to be seated in the Senate even if s/he doesn’t have the “recommended” forms.

    <

    p>At this point, I, too say seat Burris.  Frankly, even if Blago is corrupt as sin, he’s still the governor, and the appointment is legal.  It’s not even something a new governor can “undo”, I think.

    <

    p>Hopefully now we’ll have a lot of states working to legislate direct election of Senate replacements.

  4. How hard is it to say, “Once the charges against the governor became public, the decision to pick a Senate replacement for Barack Obama was going to have much more sunlight exposed to it than it would have otherwise. Given that Roland Burris appears to be qualified for the position, is untainted by the charges against the governor, and did not do any horse trading to get the appointment, we will seat him.”

    <

    p>Is that too easy?

  5. according to Nate Silver, a scientific poll with adequate sample size shows that Americans think Burris should not be seated, both in aggregate and when divided into Dems and GOPs.

    <

    p>I agree with them.  I saw a really good example but I forget where… it went like this:

    <

    p>Suppose that three people (Alice, Betty, Chris) submitted all the correct paperwork to be on the ballot and were legal candidates.  Because of corruption, Alice was kept off the ballot, and in the general election Betty beat Chris.  Should the US Senate seat Betty once it’s uncovered that Alice was kept off of the ballot illegally due to corruption?  Would the US Senate have to seat Betty?

    <

    p>Keep in mind that Betty has done nothing wrong, and she won the election following the complete official process.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>This has lots to do with Blago.  He’s on tape expressly not willing to consider certain candidates for the job because they wouldn’t get him what he wanted.  Those are the Alice candidates.  Burris is Betty.

    <

    p>I don’t believe Burris should be seated, not because Burris did anything (legally) wrong, but because the process which selected him was clearly corrupt and did not fairly consider all appropriate candidates for reasons of corruption.  Just as I don’t think the Senate should seat Betty, they shouldn’t seat Burris.  Call for a proper election/appointment.

    • but rather a good faith error, or negligence, that kept Alice off the ballot?  What then?  Betty’s win appears to be just as unfair, just as undeserved, by your reasoning.

      <

      p>And what if Alice was a fringe candidate who almost certainly wouldn’t have affected the result, but was nonetheless kept off due to “corruption” (whatever that is)?  What then?

      <

      p>This approach opens too many Pandora’s boxes.  Betty should be seated.  So should Burris.

      • If Alice was kept off due to corruption, then the election is bogus — fringe candidate or not.  The Senate shouldn’t seat the winner; they [and the courts, et al] should demand a new election.

        <

        p>If Alice was kept off due to good faith error or negligence… well, that’s irrelevance, because the allegations and evidence suggest that Blago specifically said he wouldn’t consider certain [clearly eligible] candidates because of his corruption.

        <

        p>So your what if is irrelevant.

    • unless someone provides compelling evidence that burris was picked because someone payed for him to be picked, then i really think you’re on thin to no ice here.

    • that Blagojevich was balking at?  I think Blagojevich was right to be offended and pissed off that Obama was pressuring him to pick Jarrett.  Yeah, he said that stuff about how the seats a valuable thing, but in the context of being offended by Emmanuel’s likely insinuations that they’ll ruin him if he doesn’t appoint Jarrett, so he has to appoint Jarrett.  That’s the only way to explain his “Fuck him!” comments, which just don’t make sense unless Emmanuel was putting serious weight on him.

      <

      p>Is there more evidence in those tapes that he refused to consider other people?

      <

      p>Consider that if Blago caved to Emmanuel out of fear for his future and settled for that “appreciation” and selected Jarrett, we probably wouldn’t have heard about this at all.

  6. But my reading of the 17th Amendment seems to indicate that Blago’s appointment of Burris does not preclude the IL Legislature from scheduling a special election whenever they want:

    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.

    Seems to me that the legislature may direct the election to be held before November, 2010.

      • Legally speaking–and that is what we are talking—-Harry reid has, and never had, any legal right to deny Burris. Then Reid turns it into a three ring circus.  Huh!  

Archives