Obama Doesn’t Care About The Constitution, Says Blago’s Appointment Can’t Be In Senate

• December 31, 2008

I understand the sentiment, but the law is the law.

KAILUA, Hawaii (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Tuesday he agreed that Senate Democrats “cannot accept” any move by Illinois’ scandal-tarred governor to name a replacement for Obama’s Senate seat.
Obama said he was disappointed that Gov. Rod Blagojevich — who has been accused of trying to sell the vacant Senate seat — had appointed former state attorney general Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.
“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat,” Obama said in a statement, adding that he agreed with this position.

The Illinois Secretary of State is also saying that he’ll refuse to certify anyone Blago appoints, but does that even matter? I’m no expert on Illinois election law, but it seems to me that the Secretary of State certifies elections. This is an appointment, and I really don’t see where Blago needs the permission of the Secretary of State to make it.
And for that matter, he doesn’t need the permission of the President-elect or anyone in the Senate either. Blagojevich, until he is impeached, is still the Governor of Illinois and thus has the power per the laws of that state to appoint a successor for Obama. And while the Senate does have some leeway on determining who sits in the Senate and who doesn’t, I don’t think they can deny a seat to someone who meets the Constitutional qualifications for being a Senator and was sent to that chamber in accordance with the laws of the state he’s to represent.
Frankly, I don’t want anyone Blago has appointed to be in the Senate either. I think the best outcome to this whole mess would be an election to choose the successor. But for the time being we have to follow the law.
Because we can’t just ignore it whenever it’s convenient. Though I’m not surprised that Obama and the Democrats want to do just that.
The Democrats can refuse to let Blago’s appointment into their caucus, but they can’t just keep him out of the Senate.
On a related note, as Blagojevich gets nuttier and nuttier, let’s remember that it was people like Barack Obama and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who helped him rise to power.
So Tony Rezko. William Ayers. Jeremiah Wright. Rod Blagojevich. All close friends of Obama. All people he dealt with professionally and personally on his rise to power.
Is it ok to question his judgment yet?

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Neiman

Yes we have seen how the GOP follows the Constitution.Bush and Cheney showed the world.

Show us when and where they ever violated the Constitution! No allegations, I am talking about documented proof! When were they impeached?
bill-tb

Yes, and then there is the matter where the SC already ruled that in disputes like this the State wins. So file suit Harry, let them tell you again how it’s going to be. Sorry Harry.

And you are correct, it is an appointment, not an election, and it is only temporary, so the Sec of State doesn’t matter either. It’s impeach the Gov or STFU. Oh yeah, and doesn’t the defendant get to call witnesses?

You are right about Reid not allowing him into the Dems caucus, if that matters to anybody.

I think it’s working like this — Blago say to Obama, hey got you by the short hairs, your move big guy. And remember I can always squeal on you.

The gorilla dust clouds and obfuscations are enough to choke a horse, which says to me Oh Oh, this is going to end badly.
11B40

Greetings:

George Bernard Shaw is purported to have once said, “If you can’t keep your skeletons in the closet, make them dance.”

I never figured Governor Blagojevich for a GBS fan.
groetzinger

Yes we have seen how the GOP follows the Constitution.Bush and Cheney showed the world.
Neiman

Mahdi Obama, Plagiarist Biden, Prime Minister Pelosi and Torquemada Reid and most liberals have no respect for the Constitution as written; that is, original intent. They believe it is a living document as long as liberals are in charge of any reinterpretations. For instance, the Second Amendment regarding gud control, the First Amendment regarding the false doctrine of separation of Church and state or Mahdi Obama’s expressed discontent that it does not provide for wealth redistribution. So, this is a very small departure for them, while I think SCOTUS would overturn it if challenged; which I were a Democrat, I would get someone to sue so that they could still seat the black appointee and make it appear as though they were oppossed to Blago!
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Yes we have seen how the GOP follows the Constitution.Bush and Cheney showed the world.

Typical left wing garbage. I can’t wait till we can start nit picking every last thing NOBAMA and Plugs do for the next 4 years before they are voted out of office.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Goon is such a great American. He wishes for failure so his guys can get back in and finish off this cesspool country.

Like they haven’t done enough damage during their reign of mismanagement.

If you’re hoping for as big a failure as Bush, forget it. He stands alone in a line of American leaders as absolute worst leader ever.
welder4

How easy is it to turn the subject around to something different just by posting one simple small item not related .
http://wizbangblog.com/ Jay Tea

Hate to say it, but I think the Senate can reject this guy. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

As I read it, it can judge the “qualifications” of any member and find them lacking on any grounds whatsoever, or no grounds at all. Regulating their own membership is an absolute power, much like presidential pardons. It’s one they dare not use too often, lest the voters get too cranky, but in rare cases like this I think they can count on enough public support to pull it off.

J.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

And for that matter, he doesn’t need the permission of the President-elect or anyone in the Senate either.

EEEEH. Wrong answer.
The Senate absolutely has the power to decide if they’ll seat him. Article 1. Section 5.

Each house has the power to reject a member, or to expel a member.

While Obama is not my choice, and a rampant douchebag, he’s hardly ignoring the constitution.

Obama and the Democrats are in the right here and I support them. Even O’Dumbo.
jimmypop

did the ‘pubs pay HIM to do this? this is too good. now the ‘pub tools need to sit back, shut up and watch the fireworks.

dont worry, i know they wont they are too ego driven to just shut their mouths and watch.
Neiman

jpe: Nonetheless, while I agree with what you have posted generally, SCOTUS has no power to force the Congress or the Executive Branch to obey its decisions. Each branch is free to interpret the Constitution on its own and are not in any manner subservient to the other two branches, with the exception that Congress controls the money! If SCOTUS says thus and thus, they have no military they can use to enforce their decisions; and the Justice Department and Military are under the Excecutive Branch as to military or law enforcement actions and the Congress for money to operate and that only! No, the sole Constitutional corrective for a Congress or President disobeying a SCOTUS decision is with the people at the ballot box.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Oops, I did link the actual opinion, not the summary as I thought. Which makes Kenny an idiot.

Oops, you didn’y.

Your original link in the following comment:

Sorry Jay Tea, but the SCOTUS already ruled on this.

Went to the following address:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0486_ZO.html

Which says:

Your support helps us help others
It’s a tough time to ask for money, but:
Those who have been hardest hit by the declining economy are turning to the LII in record numbers to get the legal information they need, for free.

In September and October, visits to the LII’s bankruptcy-related resources increased by 87%. On September 15th, the day of the first 500-point slide in the Dow Industrial average, use of those materials spiked at double the normal level.

People rely on our services more than ever right now — and we rely on your tax-deductible contributions.

Please give.

OOPS. It’s a fucking donation page.
Listen jackoff. Before you call anyone an idiot, check your link. If it goes to a page to give money, you might want to check your link.

I was letting you know you linked to the wrong page. I wasn’t trying to be a jerk, but if you wanna fling epithets, then, you have no clue what the hell you’re talking about and should shut the hell up you halfwit jackass.

Try not to be a moron. Did you even read any of the page? If you had, you may have noticed that a) it was an explanation of the ruling from an authoritative source and b) it had links at the top of the page to Warren’s original opinion, a concurring opinion and the dissent.

I don’t care what the ruling said. It was wrong.
The Constitution says the Senate or House determines the rules. Any SCOTUS action is automatically invalid, illegal, and unconstitutional.

Just because something is done doesn’t make it legal or constitutional. Though imbeciles like you don’t get points like “the Constitution is the law” and all that.
kbiel

Sorry Jay Tea, but the SCOTUS already ruled on this. It seems that Reid will have to seat any appointment by Blagojevich and then pass a resolution, by two-thirds majority, to expel the appointed member.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

If you’re hoping for as big a failure as Bush, forget it. He stands alone in a line of American leaders as absolute worst leader ever.

Anyone who asserts something so stpid should be laughed out of the room, so….

HAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Moron.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Sorry Jay Tea, but the SCOTUS already ruled on this. It seems that Reid will have to seat any appointment by Blagojevich and then pass a resolution, by two-thirds majority, to expel the appointed member.

The SCOTUS doesn’t GET to rule on this. The Senate is the final arbitrar of it’s rules, as is written in the Contitution. The Court can rule all they want, but the Senate is under no obligation to follow whatever BS ruling they made.

And BTW, your link doesn’t lead to a SCOTUS ruling.
kbiel

The SCOTUS doesn’t GET to rule on this.

Not only does the SCOTUS get to rule on this, the reasoning for which was included in the opinion, but they did.

The Court can rule all they want, but the Senate is under no obligation to follow whatever BS ruling they made.

Well, certainly the Senate could go all Andrew Jackson on the court, but they probably won’t. (And I can’t believe I linked Breyer. The world must be coming to an end. Read 13th through 16th paragraph.)

And BTW, your link doesn’t lead to a SCOTUS ruling.

Try not to be a moron. Did you even read any of the page? If you had, you may have noticed that a) it was an explanation of the ruling from an authoritative source and b) it had links at the top of the page to Warren’s original opinion, a concurring opinion and the dissent.
jpe

Kenny: the linked SCOTUS case seems directly on point and tells us that Reid can’t refuse to seat the appointed senator. Just as an FYI, I also found a Volokh post saying the same thing, so consider it vouchsafed.

As Volokh notes, the court could have been wrong, but for Reid to prevail in excluding the pick he’d have to get SCOTUS precedent overturned.

(As you note, there’s an obvious problem w/ standing & the Political Question Doctrine. The Warren court, surprise surprise, found that it had the ability to adjudicate the claims and that it was a justiciable claim. I could see that part getting overruled, since the Warren court is the high point of judicial power)
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

That is true! Three separate and equal branches of government, none of them subservient to the others. But, if asked to rule SCOTUS will and Congress, unwilling to take any heat for their actions, will submit!

Awesome. So our constitution is null and void. Spectacular.

Kenny: the linked SCOTUS case seems directly on point and tells us that Reid can’t refuse to seat the appointed senator. Just as an FYI, I also found a Volokh post saying the same thing, so consider it vouchsafed.

The court has no basis to rule on this. That doesn’t mean they didn’t rule. But their ruling is unconstitutional, and, if the Senate is smart, will be ignored.
kbiel

Kenny,

Look at my original link. It does not look like the one you have given to the donation page. That you were forwarded to the donation page is not my fault nor even foreseeable by me since I never saw it myself. And when I click your link I get redirected to the original page that I actually linked. Not my problem because the link I gave goes to the actual opinion.

I don’t care what the ruling said. It was wrong.

Would you care to cite jurisprudence or a law by congress that excludes the SCOTUS from ruling on this subject? And even if congress did pass a law excluding the federal courts from considering cases such as this one, the SCOTUS is likely to ignore it for the reasons given in Warren’s opinion which addresses the constitutionality of the SCOTUS being involved in article I, section 5 cases. You may disagree with his opinion and congress may certainly ignore it, but that does not change reality that the SCOTUS did rule on it and congress is likely to accede to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS rules on it and congress accedes that makes it constitutional whether you, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, believes it should be or not.

You might also wish for pink unicorns but I wouldn’t hold my breathe waiting for one if I were you.
Liberty

Yes, Kenny. Laughter is called for. Sadly there is not much but polluted air in airhead Dino’s brain. You’re not worthy enough, in my opinion and based on your statements, Dino, to shine George Bush’s shoes. Truly! I hope you better yourself, become less shallow and learn to think, gain some wisdom, as you travel through life. I hope you have the excuse of youth and inexperience in living, not just a low IQ.
AR-15

Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution? Wow, that’s a real shocker to me. LOL!
mnconservative

Interesting that Blago is now so concerned with “the letter” of the law. Clearly prior to this appointment he had no regard for the law. (I suppose I should say allegedly instead of clearly) He is thumbing his nose at, or flipping his middle finger, at everyone involved in the investigation. Bottom line, the majority of people in Illinois continue to elect these types. It’s as disgusting as the election theft occuring in the state of MN. al franken….I just threw up in my mouth.
kbiel

Oops, I did link the actual opinion, not the summary as I thought. Which makes Kenny an idiot.
Neiman

As I read it, it can judge the “qualifications”

Problem is the appointee is, is by all reasonable measure, qualified. I agree with Kbiel, SCOTUS will not allow Reid to keep him out and quite frankly that is awin for Reid. He gets to stand publicly against the Blogo and the Court allows a liberal, black Senator to take the seat!
Neiman

the Senate is under no obligation to follow whatever BS ruling they made

That is true! Three separate and equal branches of government, none of them subservient to the others. But, if asked to rule SCOTUS will and Congress, unwilling to take any heat for their actions, will submit!

SayAnythingBlog.com

Obama Doesn’t Care About The Constitution, Says Blago’s Appointment Can’t Be In Senate

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments