# Impeach Roland Burris **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 14, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870 "2009-02-14T21:54:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/101 "2009-02-19T02:13:20Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > It doesn’t matter that the reason isn’t the same. All that matters is that the reason is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That’s what the part I quoted states. Individuals deemed detrimental to the legislature for other reasons can still be forced out, but they must first be seated and then expelled by a 2/3 vote. No. The House and the Senate both have the privilege of judging the elections and returns of their members. Powell’s election was fair, while the appointment of Burris was contested. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/102 "2009-02-19T02:33:04Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > In Powell v. McCormack, the House acknowledged that Powell had been rightfully elected, but wanted to keep him out because he was corrupt. The problem with Burris is the other way around: he personally wasn’t all _that_ objectionable, but the appointment process was tainted. Since nobody had the balls to press it, obviously the point is kind of irrelevant now. What the House argued is not especially relevant – what matters is how the court laid out its decision. [Here is the full text of the decision.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0486_ZO.html) The court draws a very bright line between the power to “exclude” (before seating) and “expel” (after seating). As I read this, and IANALawyer, if someone shows up at the door having earned a seat through legal means, the Congress cannot bar the person from joining the circus. > [@](#): > > Had the intent of the Framers emerged from these materials with less clarity, we would nevertheless have been compelled to resolve any ambiguity in favor of a narrow construction of the scope of Congress’ power to exclude members-elect. A fundamental principle of our representative democracy is, in Hamilton’s words, “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.” 2 Elliot’s Debates 257. As Madison pointed out at the Convention, this principle is undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by limiting the franchise itself. In apparent agreement with this basic philosophy, the Convention adopted his suggestion limiting the power to expel. To allow essentially that same power to be exercised under the guise of judging qualifications would be to ignore Madison’s warning, borne out in the Wilkes case and some of Congress’ [p548] own post-Civil War exclusion cases, against “vesting an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature.” 2 Farrand 249. Moreover, it would effectively nullify the Convention’s decision to require a two-thirds vote for expulsion. Unquestionably, Congress has an interest in preserving its institutional integrity, but, in most cases, that interest can be sufficiently safeguarded by the exercise of its power to punish its members for disorderly behavior and, in extreme cases, to expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds. **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**. > > …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. … ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/103 "2009-02-19T02:40:35Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No. The House and the Senate both have the privilege of judging the elections and returns of their members. Powell’s election was fair, while the appointment of Burris was contested. Who contested it? I never heard anyone contest the right of the governor to appoint a senator. An attempt to change the state law (or maybe the state constitution, I’m not sure which) failed. That attempt was made, and failed, IIRC, before Blago picked Burris. It can’t be considered as contesting Burris’s appointment. The US Senate considered contesting it, but didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/104 "2009-02-19T02:57:33Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Who contested it? You could argue that the Illinois Secretary of State contested it. But the Illinois Supreme Court found that Burris’ appointment was [legal](http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf) (warning: pdf) under Illinois law even without the Secretary of State’s signature. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/105 "2009-02-19T03:16:50Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > You could argue that the Illinois Secretary of State contested it. But the Illinois Supreme Court found that Burris’ appointment was [legal](http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf) (warning: pdf) under Illinois law even without the Secretary of State’s signature. Thanks for the reminder and the link. It’s interesting the Burris brought this case, and technically lost. He wanted to force the Secretary to sign the appointment paper, and the court ruled that he didn’t have to. But it also rules that it didn’t matter – there was nothing in law requiring a signature in the first place for the appointment to be valid. Talk about losing the battle but winning the war… ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/106 "2009-02-19T03:28:03Z")
[Louis Wyman](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Closest_election_in_Senate_history.htm) showed up at the Senate with a certificate of election signed by the New Hampshire Governor and Secretary of State on January 3, 1975. He met all of the constitutional requirements for service in the United States Senate. The Senate refused to seat him, deeming the election process to have been flawed. [William Lorimer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lorimer_(politician)) showed up at the Senate with a certificate of election signed by the Illinois Governor and Secretary of State on June 17, 1909. He met all of the constitutional requirements for service in the United States Senate. The Senate seated him, _but only provisionally_, as there were accusations that his election by the legislature had been secured by bribery. The accusations proved to be well-founded, and on July 13, 1912, the Senate revoked his right to the seat by 55 to 28–_short of a two-thirds majority_. This wasn’t an expulsion, it was a denial of a right to a seat secured by a corrupt election process. Each House of Congress is the judge of the “elections, returns, and qualifications” of its own members. In this unusual case, because title to the office vests by appointment instead of election, the Senate must judge the appointment process instead of the election process. The appointment process was corrupt. Burris should not have been seated, and the Supreme Court would _not_ have intervened. The problem in _Powell v. MacCormack_ was that the House had raised no objections to the election process, but only to Powell himself. That did not apply here. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/107 "2009-02-19T03:32:31Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > Wow, I get to agree with \*\*Carol Stream \*\*for a change. Burris is a jackass at best and a self-serving corrupt piece of shit that cares nothing for his state and party much likelier. They should nail is crooked butt to the wall. Roland has been a do-nothing and empty suit from the word go. At best, he fills a seat, at worst, he’s as corrupt as the rest of the Springfield Slimebags. Out he goes. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/108 "2009-02-19T03:37:56Z")
The Trib today called for Burris to resign. I’m not gonna hold my breath hoping he will do the right thing. > **[Roland Burris, resign](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/chi-0218edit1feb18-story.html)** ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/109 "2009-02-19T04:52:04Z")
Look on the bright side! Burris has accomplished what has so far eluded Obama: a true bipartisanship! Across the aisle, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, we all agree: Burris is an ass and should leave now never to be heard from again. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/110 "2009-05-27T20:43:09Z")
Thought I would bump this for an update. [Burris caught on tape](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052601284.html?wprss=rss_politics) offering help to Blago’s campaign before his appointment. From the Post Story: > [@](#): > > Sen. Roland W. Burris (D-Ill.) can be heard on an FBI audio recording promising to make a campaign contribution to then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) at the same time he was pressing the governor for a Senate appointment. > … > > …“I will personally do something. And it’ll be done before the 15th of December,” Burris said [to Blago’s brother]. He added, “And tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya?” > > Rod Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 8 on corruption charges that included allegations of trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. Three weeks later, he appointed Burris to fill the remainder of Obama’s term. This was from an FBI wiretap. I find this interesting in that I recall the scoop on the “hurried” arrest was to prevent Blago from selling the seat. Yet he managed to kind of do so anyway. And the FBI sat on this evidence while the Senate was debating whether to seat Burris. Yes, Burris should be crumpled up like a used tissue and tossed out. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/111 "2009-05-28T04:38:59Z")
> [@Qwisp](#): > > Burris won’t resign. Just the fact that he took the seat (and probably already has Senator inscribed on his tomb) shows that he has an ego just as big as Blagos. Actually, he has run out of room on his tomb. Ironic, no, that his greatest accomplishment won’t be noted because of inscriptions about being the first black foreign-exchange student at SIU to go to Hamburg (details fuzzy). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/112 "2009-05-28T04:41:45Z")
Man’s gonna need a new tomb. Aside from the etchings, his head has outgrown the first. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/113 "2009-05-28T12:33:17Z")
I’m going to boldly predict the Senate will again do nothing, unless there is another tape on which Burris actually says, “Thanks for selling me that Senate seat, Blago.” ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/114 "2009-05-28T13:31:18Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’m going to boldly predict the Senate will again do nothing, unless there is another tape on which Burris actually says, “Thanks for selling me that Senate seat, Blago.” Harry Reid - Senate Majority Leader, limpest dick ever to hold the post? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/115 "2009-05-28T13:36:21Z")
Not limp – nonexistent. Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/116 "2009-05-28T13:36:58Z")
Kind of makes you wonder how many deliberate falls he took when he was a working boxer… ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/117 "2009-05-28T13:58:37Z")
Roland, Harry, or Nancy? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/118 "2009-05-28T14:01:32Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Roland, Harry, or Nancy? Heh. Harry Reid. I can’t figure out how he managed to competitively box with no spine at all. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/119 "2009-05-28T14:08:55Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Hopefully Illinois can quickly pull together a special election to fill the seat. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaa! That’s hilarious. When this whole mess was gearing up, bills were introduced into both houses of the Illinois legislature to strip Blago of the power to appoint a senator and quickly arrange a special election. Democrats in both houses quickly stopped both proposals, figuring that there was a pretty good chance they’d lose the Senate seat given the circumstances. Impeachment was delayed long enough that Burris was appointed, and the rest is history. So yeah, this is the fault of the Democrats on many different levels. There was no way Republicans could have prevented this - indeed, proposals from Republicans in Illinois that could have done so were ignored. Democrats figured Burris was better than any Republican - whether you agree with that or not, that was the result of their actions. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870/120 "2009-05-28T14:12:23Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaa! > > That’s hilarious. > > When this whole mess was gearing up, bills were introduced into both houses of the Illinois legislature to strip Blago of the power to appoint a senator and quickly arrange a special election. Democrats in both houses quickly stopped both proposals, figuring that there was a pretty good chance they’d lose the Senate seat given the circumstances. > > Impeachment was delayed long enough that Burris was appointed, and the rest is history. > > So yeah, this is the fault of the Democrats on many different levels. There was no way Republicans could have prevented this - indeed, proposals from Republicans in Illinois that could have done so were ignored. Democrats figured Burris was better than any Republican - whether you agree with that or not, that was the result of their actions. I’m not often in agreement with you, but in this case you are 100% correct. And Democrats will be the reason Burris DOESN’T get tossed out on his ass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-roland-burris/485870.md?page=7)