Senate Has No Right Not to Seat Roland Burris, Despite Blagojevich

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Barone cites Powell v. McCormack as the ruling that should expedite the seating of Burris. I disagree, while there are similarities in the two situations a fundamental difference is that Powell v. McCormack decides the right (or lack there of) of the senate to not seat a "elected" senator. Burris is not elected. To some this might seem like semantics, but this is what most supreme court rulings focus on - the differences in the situations.
I think that the senate, regardless of their opinion of Burris should not seat him. By doing so, it would probably be referred to the Supreme Court for a decision. The decision would help clarify, what to me is, a murky part of the constitution.

Thomas of WI 9:37PM January 07, 2009

An exercise om racosm... I suspect these days are over.. The simple answer is that the Secretary of State of Illnois (who shall remain unanamed) did not sign the documents. This is and "exercise in racism" only for those who have to aail under the failed flag of the RNC... may you all go to hell ... then may the Republican PARTY REVIVE... MAY IT PLEASE GOD. The direction you choose Mr. Barone is entirely up to you.

Daniel of IN 2:39PM January 07, 2009

When will democrats break their long history of hatred? From Roosevelt giving blacks syphilis at Tuskegee, Truman setting them up to get killed when they couldn't even eat in cafes, John F Kennedy voting against the 1959 civil rights bill, Wallace and his cohort of prominent democrats standing in schoolhouse doors keeping blacks out of schools, and now democrats refusing to seat the black Senator Burris. When will democrats stop hating?

denise stafford of OK 7:10AM January 07, 2009

One of (and some might say main) complaints of the Bush Administration by the Democratic Party was Bush's view of the "Imperial Presidency", in which Bush is accused of acting outside laws and regulations as it saw fit. I find that funny looking at the Burris situation. Let's see, the Secretary of State for Illinois says he won't accredit Burris despite the fact that doing so is his job, and it's not his choice to do his job or not. The Dems in the Senate won't seat him despite the fact that Burris was appointed by an acting govenor who still holds his office. An appointment that is within the law but the Dems in charge have decided that the law doesn't over-ride what they feel they want to do. And I'll let my personal bias about Henry Reid, the pompous bag of wind and Democrat majority leader, come out as his failure for the last two years of the Bush Administration to even hold hearing for anyone Bush wanted to appoint to office, even for boards responsible for oversite of the economy (an economy Reid is more than willing to blame Bush for) shows his incompetence to hold office. The fact that he is the point man for not seating Burris because he "didn't want to" makes me really happy to see that worm squirm. Here's hoping that maybe, just maybe, they will do what they preached to the Bush Administration for so much. Namely do their job according to the law. Oh heck, who am I kidding? This is the Dems I'm talking about.

TVolm of VA 3:36AM January 07, 2009

Fair amount of attention. Leave the crooked out of Washington!

of 10:31AM January 06, 2009

The senate has every right to not seat Burris. The supreme court was wrong in its decision---the constitution explicity gives each house the authority to determine who is "qualified" to serve--even to "judge" the elections--they have broad powers to determine who is, and who is not qulaified to take a seat in their own body--
This individual, Burris, is "unqulaified" because he has been appointed by a discredited Governor who is going to trial for trying to sell this very "seat". The appointment is not being made for the good of his state, or the country, but for the political, and legal manipulations of the Governor----or his choice is certainly under suspect for such reasons.
The Senate has the right and the responsibility to make such "judgements"---

Greg Martindale of CA 2:09AM January 06, 2009

Sir,
You are correct about Newberry. The Senate voted to seat him by 46 to 41 in 1922, but he eventually resigned after new efforts were made to force him from office. Many of his opponents in 1922 also pointed to the case of Sen. William Lorimer of IL being ousted in 1912 after it was alleged he had bought off an IL state rep to vote for him (back before popular election of senator.) In 1926 William Vare was a Philadelphia congressman that was elected to the Senate, but was never seated because of corruption. His case was in limbo for several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Newberry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lorimer_(politician)
These three names are long forgotten, but worth reviewing now with the new Burris fight.
Here's the NY Times story on seating Newberry
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C03E6DF1531EF33A25750C1A9679C946395D6CF

James Crabtree of TX 11:33AM January 05, 2009

Newberry was given his seat after an investigation. The Supreme Court stepped in and found him not guilt of election improprieties.

Steve of MO 11:05PM January 04, 2009

Roland Burris is a clueless, barely competent technocrat who has shown a remarkable ability to warm a seat and bask in the soft, gauzy glow of his own self importance. He is not corrupt and can be relied upon to accomplish absolutely nothing in the Senate except, as the first comment noted, qualify for a generous pension in two years when he leaves office.
I'm sure he knows full well that he's being used as a political pawn, but he just isn't the sort of person who cares. This appointment makes him a Senator for two years, a former Senator for the rest of his life, and lets him retire comfortably without getting his hands dirty.
The Democrats are acting like idiots. Just confirm him, and they will never hear from him again. Go to war to keep him out of the Senate, and they will tear the party apart.
Blagojevich is paying back the Democratic party with a fragmentation grenade tossed right into the heart of the party. And why shouldn't he? The rest of the party has effectively declare war against him, and he still has all of his power as a Governor, and nothing to lose.
Wait until Blagojevich gets copies of the FBI wiretap recordings and can start leaking them selectively. This is just beginning.

jms from Chicago of IL 4:36PM January 04, 2009

Dear Mr. Barone: Your memory of the Newberry case is a bit off. In the 1918 election, Newberry ran against Henry Ford on the GOP ticket. Newberry spent money by the barrel, threw mud, and did whatever it took to win. But even with all that, and 1918 being a GOP year, he barely won. He took his seat in the Senate, and then filed reports of his expenditures. Trouble was, it was quite easy to show that the reports were phonier than Bill Clinton's musings on sexual relations. Newberry was indicted, tried, and convicted under the old Federal Corrupt Practices Act. He appealed his conviction, remaining in the Senate until the Supreme Court threw out the conviction on a 5-4 vote, on the grounds that the Corrupt Practices Act was unconstitutional. Newberry roared that he was innocent and had been vindicated, but no one believed him, and the Democrats mounted a campaign to expel him. Despite a 59-37 GOP edge in the Senate, by 1922 the stench around Newberry was strong enough to make expulsion a serious possibility. He resigned in November 1922, rather than face the expulsion vote. Up to 1923, "Newberryism" was considered the scandal in the Harding Administration instead of Teapot Dome.
Burris is entitled to his seat, short of evidence coming out that he was appointed corruptly. Could he be elected in 2010? Who knows? All the African-Americans who howl that he is now being lynched, the latest victim in The Man's campaign against blacks will have to vote for him, or look even more ridiculous and idiotic than they do today. The Illinois Democrats have only themselves to blame. They could have passed legislation, as they are empowered to do under the 17th Amendment, removing the apppointment power from Rod. They did not (though, to be fair, had they done so, it seems likely that Rod would have sat on the passed bill for 30 days, which the Illinois Constitution permits him to do, while appointing someone anyway) Rod saw an opening in the PR war and grabbed it. Meanwhile the GOP gets fat from eating all that buttered popcorn. Sidesplitting laughter isn't enough to burn off all those excess calories.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Gregory Koster of WA 2:40PM January 03, 2009