Comments on: Impasse

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:19:31 +0000

Yet another twist to this sordid story: White is now claiming that he signed a document, but not the document Burris needs. What I suspect that we have here is an effort to filibuster long enough for Blago to get removed from office and have Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (who would then become governor) appoint someone else. It's sleazy, but this is the Obamanation. The Chicago Way is rapidly becoming the law of the land.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:25:15 +0000

Just one more comment after your update. This sentence from Rule II shows that this is not ironclad as Durbin states…
THE RECOMMENDED FORMS FOR CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

So these forms are “recommended” not required.

By: Anthony (Los Angeles)

Anthony (Los Angeles) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:04:33 +0000

Fascinating. We seem to have a conflict between two sections of the Constitution. On the one hand, Article I, section 5 gives each chamber the absolute right to set their own rules. Yet Amendment 17 clearly gives the states the absolute authority to set the process for filling a vacancy, and the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the Secretary of State’s endorsement is not needed.

So, which is correct? Beats me. The “American way” would be to go to court, but the courts have been historically loath to intervene in what they regard as purely political matters. How they would handle this matter, I don’t know.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:58:16 +0000

If Burris is seated it will be because Reid rolls over. Otherwise, Burris will need to go to SCOTUS and get them to endorse the ISC ruling. That’s how this one will play out, I suspect.

I posted a while ago that I thought Reid would roll on this, and he might yet. But Durbin seems pretty adamant that he won’t.

Let’s see how it works out. SCOTUS precedent appears to be on Burris’ side from what I’ve read. But the Senate rules may well come into play in this.

Let’s just see how it plays out.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:39:55 +0000

So you’re saying a Senate rule overrides the 17th Amendment?????????

Additionally, your post stated that the ISC ruling was not a win for Burris-do you still stand by that comment? Also, here’s a smart take by the Powerline guys

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022507.php

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:26:21 +0000

Read the rule. A state court does not have the authority to impose its opinion on the Federal government. Doesn’t work that way. SCOTUS may or may not take the ISC ruling into account, but the Senate has a longstanding rule that they are standing by. Burris has an uphill fight, period.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:16:29 +0000

Have you read the ruling? I have a hard time believing they are wrong-no offense to you. Here’s the quote from the ruling that quite clearly is a win for Burris as opposed to what you said-

“Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution,” the court states.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows states the power to appoint senators when there is a vacancy.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:07:32 +0000

No, I’d suggest you read the rules of the Senate. I don’t think I’m wrong here:

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule02.php

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. (Emphasis added)

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:48:17 +0000

Burris did win the ruling. The ISC said that the signature was not needed for the appointment to be valid. They also stated that contrary to what Durban said, there is no rule in the Senate that requires the signature. I love your blog but you’re wrong about this. I suggest you read the ruling.

By: tarpon

tarpon — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:47:50 +0000

If the Governor needs the signature of the Sec of State to make appointments, then why does Illinois need a Governor?