What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Guilty or innocent, the Gov hasn’t even been indicted.

He represents Illinois and those folks have a right to be represented, damn all other states opinions.

PE Obama badly needs to meet with Roland Burris for a refresher course in US Constitutional Law.

Oops! PE Obama just changed his mind on Burris—not politically motivated at all…right…

At least the self-righteous did not get to inherit Obama’s seat…

It seems that in Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court of the United States was established as the final arbitrator of the U.S. Constitutional issues – not Congress.

The case of Roland Burris may entail arguments about the ideas contained in Articles I and III of the U.S. Constitution, and Amendments X and XVII to the U.S. Constitution.

If not resolved out of court, could the issues surrounding the appointment of Roland Burris evolve into a real Constitutional crisis?

P.S. Did Illinois Secretary of State, Jessie White, commit an impeachable offense when he did not certify the duly elected Illinois Governor’s signature on the official document appointing Burris?

Stanley Kutler’s article is opinionated nonsense. The Governor Rod has not been convicted of anything yet. It was up to the Illinois legislature to remove him if they deemed him to be unfit. In the meantime, he has performed his constitutional obligation to appoint someone to replace Barack Obama’s Senate seat. That has been done. What’s with this holier than thou posturing on the part of the democrats. Obama, for calling for Blago’s resignation, just because Patrick Fitzgerald has indicted him, reveals he must not be the great legal scholar he is cracked up to be. The last time I heard, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The democratic leadership just may turn out to be a brand new class of despicable clowns.

The newest bad joke of the anti-Burris legion is that the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Powell vs. McCormack does not apply to Burris because Powell was a House member! How desperate these Constitution-violators have become and, sadly to say, PE Obama is among them.

I wish that this case was accepted by the Supreme Court tomorrow for a record-setting speed-of-ruling because the Court will undoubtedly teach a scathing lesson to these dancers around their “Golden Calf” of made-up dictatorial laws.

BTW—you know that PE Obama is siding with Reid, right, Obama aupporters?

You also know that the governor is out on bail….if there are others APPOINTED (not elected) in the same situation , I dont know about it. I am surprised they did not admit him (if not seat him) today.

It matters not at all to me, but it does give the GOP more ammo. Obamam has given them plenty enough.

It’s all irrelevant. Strictly a procedural matter in a petty turf war. Burris is a card-carrying Democrat. Anyone the Senate Democrats appoint/approve would be likewise. Neither Rod nor Harry have any intention of appointing a Green candidate or a socialist. Democrats and Republicans share a common goal - to preserve the fetid two-party system. Their power and privilege depend on it and that of those who call the shots behind the scenes. Anyone appointed to the seat will - like Obama - have to be a corporate Uncle Tom and an AIPAC toady. The rest is just about personality and skin tone, just like the Obama phantasm. It’s so deeply ingrained in American politics, no one gives it a passing thought anymore. Every one essentially agrees on policy objectives, so what’s left but personal vanity and hollow symbolism.
    Long ago, the postbellum Congress’s insistence on preventing the defeated and devastated Southern states from democratically choosing their own representatives after the War Between the States was a typically short-sighted policy based on partisan expediency. It led directly and deliberately to the whole sordid “carpetbagger” politics that blighted the former Confederate states for so many years; and set back the process of full reconciliation and reunification many decades. For a century afterward, in fact, the South’s resentment toward Republicans led to blanket voting for Democrats and was one of the pillars of that Party’s national electoral sucess, before the crafty Nixon finally hatched a new Southern strategy for Republicans. If Abraham Lincoln had lived to continue as president after the Civil War, it’s unlikely such vindictive policies would have been pursued or that Reconstruction would have been so harsh. Such “abuse of a properly endowed power is” a very powerful “argument against its existence”.  “Alas, expediency is the law of life in politics”.
    The refusal to seat Berger, the Wisconsin socialist, was even more revealing of Congress’ true colors. Not only did it once again show the political establishment’s complete contempt for democracy and the will of the people but it was a blatant demonstration of the American government’s true purpose - to serve private capital. That’s still the overarching purpose of every Congress and Administration and both major parties down to the present day. The infamous Espionage Act of 1917 - which the great Eugene Debs was also framed with - was nothing short of fascist legislation. It was the brainchild of a ‘liberal’ Democratic president, the ruthless Woodrow Wilson. It’s intent, in fact, has parallels in the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA and other contemporary authoritarian legislation supported by Republi-crats. Reid and Blagojevich (and Stevens and DeLay) may disagree on the limits of the political spoils system - but there’s no disagreement over the strict limits of the ideological system.

His qualifications are not at issue.

I just wish that , if the “pay to play” duopoly was going to “take a pricipled stand”—they would do it concerning something more consequential.

Some Dem is going to be seated,and it should probably be an Af Am. I dont think that failure to seat Burris is about race, at all.

Cave on (MORE—thay are getting ready to) tax cuts for business (the middle class doesnt really need tax cuts either), cave on Iraq, cave on Bush impeachment—-but hold the line on Richardson and Burris!

What are the Dems trhing to do—take a “moral stand”? That will be the day…neither party has stood up to Bush on any principle at all..

P.S. It is very disturbing that PE Obama, who has been called a “Constitutional Scholar” on this site, does not get it. Was McCain correct after all?

When our Constitution speaks on “qualification”, in this case for a Senator to be seated, it has nothing to do with “distinguished” or “accomplished”. That is irrelevant. I am not a Constitutional scholar but to me “qualification ” means:

1. The person is a US citizen (including naturalized citizens).
2. The person has the required age.
3. The person was legally elected or appointed.

Since Mr. Burris conforms with all three requirements this simple soul dihey concludes that the Senate’s refusal to seat him is an illegal roadblock and a terrible precedent for the future.

Because of this the US Supreme Court should accept Burris’ case on a very fast track. After all it did not take them very long in 2000 to rule in Bush vs. Gore.

My hunch is that the framers of the Constitution wanted to keep “traitors” out of the Senate.

whitebeard - I agree.  Also, I was amused by Kutler’s less than complimentary assessment of Burris implying that the ‘other’ Senators are highly qualified when too many of them are basically sleeze bags.

Let’s face it.  Washington is a town that pays more attention to loyalty (cronyism) and discretion (protect our own at all costs) than to vision or success.

To use that clause to say that the Senate can refuse to seat elected or duly-appointed members solely at its arbitrary discretion means that one party given enough votes could eliminate the other party from membership by refusing to seat them. Such would give new life to criminal autocrats like Frist, DeLay, Rove, et. al., and their threat of nuclear options.

Should the Supreme Court uphold such an interpretation, a Consitutional amendment is needed, NOW.

Considering that the Governor of New Mexico has had to withdraw from consideration for Commerce Secretary, due to a “pay to play” investigation in his own state, isn’t this much ado about nothing? Obama wants to rise above the taint of Blagojevich? A money hungry politician who, if he had more power, would like to play rough. Yet President-elect Obama sees no problem with appointing Wall Street slicks to fix the economy. The more I observe the President-elect and his team, the more ridiculous they become.