The descpicable Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, majority leader of the Senate has acted unlawfully in his role and outside of his enumerated powers. By blocking the seating of the newly appointed Burris from Illinois, he has gone against the rule of law as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court's "Powell v McCormack decision, which held that the Congress is limited in its ability to challenge the qualifications of its members to grounds explicitly outlined by the Constitution." (1)
Harry Reid's justification, via his spokesman, was "[W]e are not making a judgment about qualifications of appointee, but about whether appointment itself is tainted by fraud, which we believe we are entitled to do under Art. 1 s. 5."
In POWELL V. MCCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486 (1969):
"In short, both the intention of the Framers, to the extent it can be determined, and an examination of the basic principles of our democratic system persuade us that the Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by a majority vote.
For these reasons, we have concluded that Art. I, 5, is at most a "textually demonstrable commitment" to Congress to judge only the qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution. Therefore, the "textual commitment" formulation of the political question doctrine does not bar federal courts from adjudicating petitioners' claims."
"Further, analysis of the "textual commitment" under Art. I, 5 (see Part VI, B (1)), has demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."
In the Burris case, he was not elected, but appointed by the executive of Illinois, which the Constitution states is legitimate when a seat has been vacated. Reid states that it's not Burris' qualifications in question, but the manner in which he was appointed, that it was potentially fraudulent. Really? How? How can the Governor saying "I appoint him" pointing to Burris, be fraudulent? It's clear and straightforward. There is no question that he appointed anyone else or that Blagovich is not the executive, as he has not been impeached.
-------------------
- Reid's Constitutional Argument on Burris, http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/reids-constitutional-argument-on-burris.html, 20081231, by Nate Silver
- U.S. Constitution, http://nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2
- POWELL V. MCCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=486
- see Conclusion
