Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Burriss won his election by a vote of 1-0. The only citizen of Illinois who was eligible to cast a vote was Blagojevich. You'll otherwise have to take your complaint up with those founding father folks. They're the ones who made each house "the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". They can refuse to seat an elected candidate if there are grounds to suspect that the election may have been fraudulent, and they can quite certainly and for however long they like refuse to seat an appointed candidate if there are grounds to suspect that the appointment process may have been tainted.
Illinois law says the sitting Governor will appoint someone to replace Obama in the Senate. Blago is the sitting Governor, and he has not been impeached, nor has he been convicted. The people investigating Blago and how he went about the appointment have stated that Burris's name did not come up in the investigation. So what are the grounds for suspecting that Burris's appointment was tainted? The election clearly wasn' fraudulent--it's pretty clear and transparent. Moreover, the citizens of the state of Illinois do have recourse. They have a representative legislature as well that can take various actions to reverse this appointment. Who goes to the US Congress is a matter for the state, not for the federal government. Blago may have broken federal laws, that will come out in the future as the prosecutor pursues his case. Blago may be a corrupt individual, but his service is to the people of Illinois, just as Burris's service is to the people of Illinois. The US Senate has openly seated criminals before, so their actions in this case have been hypocritical. It's not their job to punish Blago, and especially not when their actions harm the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who are denied representation by their refusal to seat a Senator who by law was legally appointed.
I can only assume you're referencing the first sentance, but to me that would not have any relavance in this case since Burris meets the age, citizenship,is of sound mind and has some experience in governmental affairs of various types etc...So please enlighten me as to how you'd use this to deny him appointment to the office.
Well, you've got the right sentence, at least. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members. See those first two words? They give Congress the power to exclude incoming Senators and Representatives whose status may appear to have been achieved under questionable circumstances. It's been that way since the Republic was founded.
Illinois law says the sitting Governor will appoint someone to replace Obama in the Senate.
It also says the Secretary of State must certify. Has that happened? And you're still looking at only one side of the coin. States can send people to Washington as they will, but Washington can send them right back again if they don't pass muster on well-established grounds...
It also says the Secretary of State must certify. Has that happened? And you're still looking at only one side of the coin. States can send people to Washington as they will, but Washington can send them right back again if they don't pass muster on well-established grounds...
Where's your precedent for the Senate sending people back? Has that happened?
The Secretary of State of Illinois is supposed to co-sign the appointment. That hasn't happened. But the law does not say that the failure of the Secretary of State to sign-off on the appointment invalidates the appointment. It's vague on this point, and that is why this entire drama is being played out. That point must be resolved by the courts. Burris's fellow Senators are on the federal level, and the Constitution is clear that it is up to the state to determine how Senators are chosen under various circumstances, not up to the US Senate. The US Senate's actions on this matter have been an attempt to usurp state power, which is why I've questioned them from the get-go.
I think a better question to ask is "Why are Republicans so obsessed with race"?
Maybe it's "white guilt" because they know that the only place they are popular in America is in all the old Jim Crowe/segregationist states in the Deep South.
Why are the Democrats so against Mr. Burris getting his justly, legally due Senate seat?
Are we now seeing just how deeply and truly racist the Democrats actually are.....
Why are you so supportive of Burris? Does Illinois politics interest you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HappyCells supports Burris
