LOL: Blago to Appoint Fmr. AG to Senate Seat

[emailking]

Constituion: "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..."

There are no elections or returns to judge. Qualifications, by precedent, are limited to age, residency, & citizenship. 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/senate-might-not-have-authority-to.html

[emailking]

They may either realize they really don't have the authority to reject and reluctantly accept the appointment, or it may not have to go to the Supreme Court for a court to rule against the Senate.

[emailking]

Key words in the quoted portion...by precedent.

It's a court precedent, not a Congressional Precedent.

The Supreme Court ruled the House couldn't refuse an appointment if age, residency, and citizenship were met. The same clause gives the Senate its power to judge its members.

Sure the Senate could say eff that, but they're violating a ruling by the SCOTUS.

[emailking]

I don;t have a problem with what Bobby Rush said. It's pretty sad that out of 100 Senators minus Obama, none is/was black. There's a 0.0001% chance of that happening just randomly.

[emailking]

Reid's office put out a statement that is horribly, horribly, horribly, wrong and they're going to lose, but here it is:

I guess your point is that it is irrelevant whether the seat was sold (worst case scenario) or not, it's still a legal appointment?

I would assume the "elections and returns" part of the clause would empower the Congress to judge whether or not a person actually received a legal appointment or not.

[emailking]

What can I say?  This is political food at its epic best.  I can't believe political junkies like us [me?] are lucky enough to observe this madness.

Yeah I'm right with you on that. This is great!

I'm also interested in the legal aspects. I love trails. It's not at all clear to me they're going to get a conviction on anything serious. Impeachment/removal is a different matter.

[emailking]

On another topic.......I concur with those who are suggesting that Reid would be on shaky ground to deny Burris the seat.  However, what about the Illinois Secretary of State?  He's refusing to certify the appointment.  Is he legally within his rights to do so?  Can they block Burris's appointment just by having the SoS refuse to certify it?

Sounds like he has to certify it for it to count, but he has no business not certifying it if it was a legal appointment.

[emailking]

Reid's office put out a statement that is horribly, horribly, horribly, wrong and they're going to lose, but here it is:

I guess your point is that it is irrelevant whether the seat was sold (worst case scenario) or not, it's still a legal appointment?

I would assume the "elections and returns" part of the clause would empower the Congress to judge whether or not a person actually received a legal appointment or not.

If there was evidence that the seat was sold, then that would be different.

But here's the thing, doesn't Article 1 give the Senate full authority to determine whether the seat was sold or not (if that is the factor which would disqualify this "election")? What does it matter if there is evidence or not?

[emailking]

What happens if he simply refuses to certify it?  It goes to court, and Burris certainly prevails?  Then Reid tries to block his being seated, and it goes to court, and Burris wins again?

If all of that happens, I assume Burris is then seated by the Senate.

Why not simply pass the special election law today?  Maybe by the time Burris is able to force his appointment through the legal process, the special election will have already occurred, and his appointment will be moot anyway.

Here's from the 17th Amendment: "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."

I guess the problem is that the legislature empowered the governor to make an appointment, no legislation revoking this power was ever passed, and an appointment has now been made.

Perhaps the law empowering the governor has a provision that the legislature has a window to nullify the appointment, but I don't know if that is the case or not.

[emailking]

I think you are correct, just not totally sure. I think it's too late for the legislature to do anything. Even if Blago was impeached/removed tomorrow and then they passed law for a special election which was held while Burris is still in limbo, legally I think Burris would win out (in the courts) over whoever won the special election as being the Sentor-elect up for consideration by the full Senate.

Now whether Reid can succeed on these claims of Congressional sole authority to determine if Burris's "election" was "tainted" I really don't know.