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.
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.
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.
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.
You could argue that the Illinois Secretary of State contested it. But the Illinois Supreme Court found that Burris’ appointment was legal (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…
Louis Wyman 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 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.
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.
The Trib today called for Burris to resign. I’m not gonna hold my breath hoping he will do the right thing.
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.
Thought I would bump this for an update.
Burris caught on tape offering help to Blago’s campaign before his appointment.
From the Post Story:
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.
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).
Man’s gonna need a new tomb. Aside from the etchings, his head has outgrown the first.
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
Not limp – nonexistent. Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls.
Kind of makes you wonder how many deliberate falls he took when he was a working boxer…
Roland, Harry, or Nancy?
Heh. Harry Reid. I can’t figure out how he managed to competitively box with no spine at all.
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.