Burris Will Be Seated In The Senate

The Democrats in the Senate, headed by Harry Reid, picked an unnecessary battle over the appointment of Roland Burris, former Illinois Attorney General by Governor Blagojevich of Illinois to fill Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat. This battle reminds one of the British military action during the founding of this country. Their style of forming lines, shooting, then retreating while another line took their place exemplifies the drama being played out in Illinois and Washington.

First, the Secretary of State of Illionis refused to certify Roland Burris's appointment. The real question is whether the Secreatary of State has the right to willfully neglect a duty entrusted to his office. The Illinois code(10 ILCS 5/25‑5) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑5) is straightforward on the subject. It states:

“When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.”

The code,(15 ILCS 305/5) (from Ch. 124, par. 5), also states "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.

Secretary White has no discretion in this matter. The code mandates his signature.

The next British line came up after retreat. The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, earlier this month sought to question Gov. Blagojevich’s authority under that provision, citing federal criminal investigators’ contentions that he sought to sell the Obama seat for personal gain. In this case the Governor has not been indicted or charged with any crime up to this point. The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear her case without explanation.

A Congressional Research study titled "Status of a Member of the House Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony" dated October 5, 2007 clearly states:

"If a sitting Member of Congress is indicted for a criminal offense that constitutes a felony, the status and service of that Member is not directly affected by any federal statute or Rule of the House of Representatives. No rights or privileges are forfeited under the Constitution, statutory law, or the Rules of the House merely upon an indictment for an offense, prior to an establishment of guilt under our judicial system.

Once a Member of the House is convicted of a crime that is a felony, certain potential consequences exist relevant to his or her status as a Member of the House. It should be noted that Members of Congress do not automatically forfeit their offices upon conviction of a crime that constitutes a felony. There is no express constitutional disability or “disqualification” from Congress for the conviction of a crime, other than under the Fourteenth Amendment for certain treasonous conduct."

If the House of Representatives has such constitutional protections how can the Senate impose or restrict Roland Burris from taken his seat when he has no convictions? This issue is not about race, even though there are no African-Americans in the Senate right now. The issue centers on Harry Reid's theory and political strategy that Burris will lose the seat to a Republican. His personal strategy will tarnish and challenge Barack Obama's chances for a smooth transition already marred by Richardson.

Clinton, Richardson, and Obama

From my previous posts one can surmise that I am not a fan of Barack Obama. My reasons are many but mainly center on his lack of experience. I listened to the older George Bush in a recent interview talk kindly of PEBO. The comment that stuck with me was Bush's assessment that Barack is articulate. While that my be true it makes me personally feel the country will be "sold" on something, not united to solve our problems.

A crack in his cabinet appeared over the weekend. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico withdrew his name for the post of Commerce Secretary due to the disclosure of an investigation over the award of a state contract to one of his donors. The Obama transition team claims that Richardson wasn't forthcoming with this information before the announcement of his appointment. Their claim falls flat on its face since the Albuquerque Journal has been reporting on this story since August, 2008. A simple Google search would glean light on the allegation.

This story follows a similar story recently where an upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Clinton's foundation in November 2004, about the same time Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman's mall project.

Sen. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse, N.Y.

She also helped secure an earmark in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.

In another saga Eric Holder, PEBO's nominee for Attorney General, failed to disclose that Governor BLagojevich picked him to settle an Illinois casino license mess.

Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder's role as "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board" -- a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000.

Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week -- an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama's transition team indicated late Tuesday.

I guess these acts are the change PEBO convinced us he would bring to Washington.