Why the Senate Should Seat Burris
If you are confused about the Burris debate (that's Burris, not Burress) yesterday's NYT has an excellent Op Ed, which nicely describes the issue and argues the Senate should seat him. The article makes the same points I would make except, you know, way better.
[Update: Oh, goody. Today Senate Democrats have agreed to a compromise, whereby Burris will be seated as long as he meets "certain conditions." The article doesn't specify what those conditions are, but the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times suggested yesterday that they could include a promise from Burris to not run in 2010 -- for the record, think that's bullshit; I don't think the U.S. Senate can make that demand any more than they can refuse to seat a properly appointed Senator. But then again, last semester I was publicly branded as a pre-14th Amendment anti-reconstructionist, so take my assessment for the curmudgeonry that it is worth.
Anyway, it looks like the Senate majority has come to its senses. Elie at ATL captured part of the issue when he said: "[Despite Democrats' Legislative majority and control of the Executive] Looks like the Invertebrate party hasn't lost it's talent for folding like a cheap accordion under the slightest bit of pressure." The only thing Elie failed to mention was the reactionary, groundless, knee-jerk-grandstanding that started this ball rolling.]
[Update: Oh, goody. Today Senate Democrats have agreed to a compromise, whereby Burris will be seated as long as he meets "certain conditions." The article doesn't specify what those conditions are, but the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times suggested yesterday that they could include a promise from Burris to not run in 2010 -- for the record, think that's bullshit; I don't think the U.S. Senate can make that demand any more than they can refuse to seat a properly appointed Senator. But then again, last semester I was publicly branded as a pre-14th Amendment anti-reconstructionist, so take my assessment for the curmudgeonry that it is worth.
Anyway, it looks like the Senate majority has come to its senses. Elie at ATL captured part of the issue when he said: "[Despite Democrats' Legislative majority and control of the Executive] Looks like the Invertebrate party hasn't lost it's talent for folding like a cheap accordion under the slightest bit of pressure." The only thing Elie failed to mention was the reactionary, groundless, knee-jerk-grandstanding that started this ball rolling.]
Labels: Elections, Rabid Liberals
posted by Patrick Bageant at 5:55 AM
9 Comments:
"Nor do the other arguments against Mr. Burris’s appointment hold up. The contention by the Democratic leadership that Mr. Burris can be denied a seat because the Illinois secretary of state refuses to sign his appointment papers is without merit — it would confer upon secretaries of state absolute veto power over governors’ appointments."
Doesn't this sound incredibly similar to the situation that gave rise to Marbury v. Madison? If Marbury couldn't compel his appointment because the mere formality of delivering his appointment did not occur, how can it be argued that the absence of the secretary of state's signature is inconsequential? (This is presuming that it is required by the Illinois Constitution, which I don't care enough to research). The author's dismissal of this argument seems sloppy.
Federalist, I'd strongly suggest rereading Marbury. If I recall correctly, Marshall held that Marbury was entitled to his appointment because the act of affixing the seal of the united states (an act that Marshall himself forgot to do as SoS) was ministerial in nature because the SoS had no discretion in the matter.
Marbury lost on jurisdiction grounds.
Luckily, 12:42, you don't have to do the research, since other people have. A Balkinization post partially addresses that question, here.
(15 ILCS 305/5) (from Ch. 124, par. 5):
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:
1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor.
2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed..... (emphasis added)
"curmudgeonry": I've never seen this usage before. I think I like it. However, I would have truncated the sentence in which it appears at "is". Thoughts, anyone?
Some bar stats are out. 89%.
http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2008STATS.pdf
Oh Armen, you just had to point out those "legal issues." Fine. You win. But honestly... who reads Marbury once they're done with Con Law?
Con Law professors.
And Armen. I can see him pacing his office, chanting: "It is emphatically the province of the judiciary . . . "
Not me. I certainly wouldn't rereard it to say brush up on the issues relating to Bush taking back a pardon after signing it. Nope. Not me.
Post a Comment
<< Home