Reports the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet: I've learned that Gov. Blagojevich is poised to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President elect Barack Obama in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The embattled Blagojevich, fighting impeachment charges in the Illinois House, just called a press conference for 2 p.m. Chicago time at the Thompson State of Illinois Center. |
Burris, 71, may find he has no cause to celebrate. The Chicago Tribune reports:
The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.So Gov. Blagojevich's announcement won't be nearly as important as Harry Reid's reaction to it.
2 comments:
Waitaminute -- since when do "Democratic senate leaders" have the power or authority to "not seat" a duly appointed senator?
The arrogance.
Vet,
That seems to be an open question. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution reads:
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."
The Senate's page interprets that this way:
"The House and Senate decide whether their members are qualified to serve and have been properly elected, and determine any disputed elections. One-half plus one of each house is necessary to make a quorum to conduct business."
Whether this means they can reject an appointment may not be so clear:
CBS News:
"But is this power absolute? Not according to the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court ruled that the House of Representatives did NOT have the power to refuse to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the New York Congressman who was embroiled in a legal case that resulted in a contempt citation being issued against him.
The House’s power to judge “qualifications”, the Court said, meant Constitutional qualifications: age, citizenship, that sort of thing."
We'll see if Reid's willing to cause a constitutional test here. Probably not. Burris seems to be a pretty decent and clean appt. (surprisingly).
Post a Comment