State Senate In Illinois Removes Blagojevich From Office

• January 30, 2009

At this point, there’s no doubt that Rod Blagojevich is a corrupt schmuck he deserves to be out of office. That being said, is it a really a good idea to have a situation where an elected official is being removed from office without having been convicted of a crime?
What about innocent until proven guilty? Do the courts even matter any more, or is the court of public opinion – with media talking heads serving as judge, jury and executioner – the only court that really matters?

The governor said he would like to apologize, but couldn’t because he didn’t do anything wrong. The senators watched attentively. Many leaned forward in their seats. Some took notes.
“It’s painful and it’s lonely, but I want you to know I never, ever intended to commit a criminal act,” Blagojevich said.
The two-term Democratic governor spoke for 47 minutes, then smiled and winked at reporters as he passed the press box on his way out of the Senate.

I’m not crying any tears for Blago, but I think he should have been convicted first.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Hawk

How is this even constitutional?

Because the Illinois House impeached him and the Senate convicted him. It is exactly the proscribed way of removing somebody from office. How is it not Constitutional?
carrick

How is this even constitutional?
eneils Bailey

How is this even constitutional?

It may not be…but this is a political trial…not governed by the laws imposed in criminal or civil court.

I don’t see that Blago actually did anything criminal…

He may not have committed any criminal offenses… does not matter in political impeachment.

The worst part for the people in Illinois is that his replacement won’t be any better.

These people that live in these Liberal/Democrat states are supposed to be the smartest people in the United States, so they tell us. They have given to us, at the state and federal level some of the biggest dickheads in American politics.
Hawk

I think you’re wrong on that. He plea bargained and pled guilty.

He settled a civil suit and the charges were never brought.
kbiel

Rob,

He was convicted, in the Illinois state senate. The only penalty they may impose, though, is removal from office. It is a trial as prescribed in the state constitution. It is also prescribed in the U.S. constitution. Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted without ever even having a criminal indictment. Richard Nixon was on his way to being impeached when he decided to resign. No one was ready to bring criminal charges against him. Bill Clinton was impeached and acquitted. Contempt charges were later levied and he lost his law license, but he was never convicted of perjury even though that is the exact charge the senate tried him on.

Let’s put this another way. Let us say that a CEO is a target of a very public investigation. Do the board of directors have a right to fire the CEO even though he has not been indicted? Of course they have the right and they have a good cause. They do not want to keep employing a possible criminal through out a trial that might take up to a year to complete. Not only does it look bad for the company but how can the CEO properly execute his duties while being on trial? Well, the Illinois senate is the board of directors and they just fired their CEO.
Hawk

Here is the relevant section of the Illinois Constitution:

SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to
conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence
of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of
the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial
officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When
sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or
affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor
is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not
extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to
hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to
prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Yes, the legislature has the power, but what of Blago’s rights? What of due process? They impeached him on a presumption of guilt that has not been established.

He had a trial before the Senate and Due Process was granted. There is no reason that they should have to wait until his criminal case winds through the lower courts. The people of Illinois deserve a governor who is effective.
eneils Bailey

My opinion is that it is was not, because it is not obvious he committed criminal conduct.

Truuee…Truuueee…How True..

This was not about Criminal conduct….

This is squarely in the the crapper of Illinois politics…
He should probably go to jail for his conduct…What the Illinois legislature did is and will be upheld as Constitutional in any court in the land.

Ok…he did not commit a criminal act…
Does not matter… He’s gone and he will stay gone…

Gee…I would have loved for him to stay around… what a clown..
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Who’s Obama going to hide behind now?
Brent

He may not have committed any criminal offenses… does not matter in political impeachment.

I know. I didn’t say that it did matter, but Rob was questioning the appropriateness of the impeachment/conviction. My opinion is that it is was not, because it is not obvious he committed criminal conduct.
Brent

Blago’s an ass, but he still has rights.

Then we agree. Blago got run over, but I am not decidedly not sympathetic to a politician getting eventually run over by politics. The unfortunate part is that more of these politicians don’t get what they deserve.
carrick

Thanks for answering my question, Hawk.

I’m pretty sure though there isn’t enough evidence at this point (available to the Illinois Senate) to warrant a conviction, so it would still have to be regarded as politically motivated

I guess you can get kicked out of your job without ever committing a crime, this might be such a case, though it seems like this runs at odds with “the will of the people”. (He wasn’t appointed to Governor by the Illinois State Legislature, but if that’s their constitution…)
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

Having grown up in the Chicago market, I was surprised by this.
I suspect he is a sacrificial lamb.
It will be interesting to find out who else was recorded.
Brent

Well there’s no doubt the legislature has this power, but was it asserted appropriately?

Like I said, in my opinion, no. But you really can’t blame anyone but the voters for letting their government get so nutty. The legislators must have thought that impeaching and removing him from office was acceptable in the opinion of the public (if only because the public is usually so indifferent).
http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

Kevin,

Having grown up in the Chicago market, I was surprised by this.
I suspect he is a sacrificial lamb.
It will be interesting to find out who else was recorded.

First Kevin’s right.

He is.

For Obama I suspect in part.

The ties between Rod and Rezko and Barri are amazing.

The problem is he lives in Chicagoland. We have a bad habit of causing political enemies to end up in a trunk with a bullet in the head.

Rod knows a lot of things. Too much.

I wouldn’t sleep if I were him.
Brent

Well, as much as I tend to agree, the legislative branch should absolutely be allowed to assert itself… I would advise voting out these legislators that didn’t wait for an indictment or prove criminal conduct during the impeachment trial. I don’t see that Blago actually did anything criminal… he was just being a typical slimy politician.

The worst part for the people in Illinois is that his replacement won’t be any better.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

he (clinton) was never convicted of perjury even though that is the exact charge the senate tried him on.

I think you’re wrong on that. He plea bargained and pled guilty.
kbiel

Whistler,

It looks like we are both wrong. Clinton was not held in contempt nor was he prosecuted. He was disciplined by the AR bar. Oops, another punishment without conviction.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

If fact you aren’t supposed to charge a president with a crime until he’s been charged in the house and tried in the Senate.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Damn, and the stems were going to try and milk that “scandal” for the next 4 years!
sayanything-2483

]
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

A political trial under state constitutional rules is at a lower burden of proof than a civil proceeding if I’m reading that correctly. It is merely to determine whether or not grounds exist for removal from office. It’s the only real method of removal short of criminal prosecution first to remove politicians who unlike individuals in private enterprise cannot be simply fired by their employers, in this case the people. The peoples’ representatives, the legislators, have to stand in as proxy.

Whether they could do that despite overwhelming public opposition or should is another matter.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

The legislators must have thought that impeaching and removing him from office was acceptable in the opinion of the public (if only because the public is usually so indifferent).

You’re right. I just don’t happen to be so indifferent. Blago’s an ass, but he still has rights.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Well, as much as I tend to agree, the legislative branch should absolutely be allowed to assert itself

Well there’s no doubt the legislature has this power, but was it asserted appropriately?

Same to Hawk: Yes, the legislature has the power, but what of Blago’s rights? What of due process? They impeached him on a presumption of guilt that has not been established.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension. Nobody is questioning that the legislature had the power to act. The question is: Should they have acted?

The impeachment presumed Blago’s guilt in the corruption matter, but Blago has yet to have his day in court. And if you’re suggesting that Blago’s impeachment hearings are an ok substitute for a trial by jury, note that Blago was not allowed to call any witnesses in his own defense.

From the 6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Blago wasn’t afforded his rights. But I guess it’s ok to ignore the Constitution when it’s convenient for Democrats.

SayAnythingBlog.com

State Senate In Illinois Removes Blagojevich From Office

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments