Obama Citizenship

IL Supreme Court Rejects Burris? Case; Governor?s Appointment Good; Senate Continues Stalling; A Second Senator-Designate?

By Phil

Today, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected Senator-Designate Roland Burris’ case to force the Secretary of State to co-sign Governor Rod Blagojevich’s appointment form (following are excerpts from an exceptional play-by-play from The Capitol Fax Blog):

The Illinois Supreme Court has just rejected Senator-Designate Roland Burris? motion to force Secretary of State Jesse White to co-sign Burris? appointment form?

Because the Secretary of State had no duty under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to sign and affix the state seal to the document issued by the Governor appointing Roland Burris to the United States Senate, Petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those Acts. Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary?s sole responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), which he did. No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor?s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law. Moreover, to the extent that additional proof of the validity of the appointment is necessary, Illinois law provides a mechanism for obtaining it without the need for judicial intervention.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioners? request for issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied. Mandate to issue forthwith.

The ball is now in US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?s, um, court. Reid has said that the rule requiring the secretary of state to co-sign has never been waived in the history of the Senate. So, he?ll have to back off that as well if Burris is to be seated.

Reid said this week that the full Senate might vote on whether to seat Burris.

Here?s the alternative route suggested by the Supremes?

There is one final point we feel constrained to mention. While the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, he does have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006))

?to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper in his office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of the state.?

The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the Secretary of State is a ?record or paper? within the meaning of this statute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyone who requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by the Secretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could obtain a certified copy bearing the state?s seal. Because such relief is possible, no order by this court is necessary or appropriate. [emphasis added]

…

Fox?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was banking on the Illinois court to resolve the matter after turning away Burris earlier in the week because his paperwork was not signed.

But White says he still won?t sign the document, since the court didn?t force him. And Democratic leaders on Friday maintained that Burris still cannot take President-elect Barack Obama?s vacant Senate seat without White?s signature.

?Mr. Burris is exactly where he was a week ago,? a senior Democratic aide told FOX News. ?He does not have a valid certificate, and we cannot seat him.? [?]

But White told several Democratic officials Friday that he will not sign the appointment, maintaining his position that he wouldn?t certify any Blagojevich appointment in the wake of the governor?s federal corruption arrest unless the court forced him.

Further, the AP seems to be reporting that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) will not seat Mr. Burris until such time as they receive a signature from the IL SOS.

TheHill.com goes on to say the following:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said earlier this week that a Senate rule [alledgedly from 1884!] prohibits Burris or any senator from being seated unless they have certificates signed by their states’ governors and secretaries of state.

“We think we have complied with whatever they’ve asked us to do, and we’ve come back with what they required,” Burris attorney Timothy Wright III said in an early-evening conference call. “If they continue to not accept this, I believe we will make a decision to file suit in federal court. Anyone who looks at this has to conclude that we’ve complied.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley issued this statement in response: ?The Senate Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate and Senate Legal Counsel are advising Senate Leadership as we consider a way forward.” …

Wright left little doubt that Burris would file a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, which would almost certainly take months to resolve. Blagojevich was impeached Friday and Senate leaders expect he will be removed from office by Illinois state lawmakers within weeks ? long before the resolution of the lawsuit ? allowing Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D-Ill.) to assume the governor’s office and make a fully legal appointment.

Not only all of the above, but did you know that Roland Burris allegedly discussed his potential appointment to the Senate seat with a Blagojevich insider? So much for his denial of pay-for-play!

Question: Why is the US Senate continuing to stonewall on seating Senate-Designate Burris? What else is going on here, behind the scenes, that will likely result in this case heading to federal court, perhaps even the Supreme Court?

There’s a very good reason why the US Senate cannot, constitutionally, force a State’s hand on this issue (17th Amendment):

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. [emphasis mine]

If the Democratic Senate leadership continues to push this issue, could it actually be possible that Lt. Gov. Quinn, after potentially becoming Governor, actually appoint a second Senate-Designate for the President-Elect’s old Senate seat?

Just how out of whack is this situation going to get?

Frankly, in my opinion, if I were Rod Blagojevich, I’d play this situation for all it’s worth. While I think he’s ethically and morally guilty as sin, he has managed to call the Majority Leader’s bluff as well as single-handedly and systematically taken the Senate’s time and resources to focus on him.

Again, it really makes me wonder what this is all about. Could Blagojevich squeal? Does he have some serious dirt on someone or somebody? Why would Senate-Designate Roland Burris speak in an affidavit about being a natural born citizen? That citizenship status isn’t required to be a US Senator!

Update: Wow, do I ever ask the right questions! RedState.com is reporting the following:

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, says president-elect Obama?s Senate seat will stay vacant until Democrat Governor Blagojevich is removed and a new appointment can be certified:

?At this point we?ve clearly reached an impasse,? Durbin told reporters at his Chicago office.

That?s Democrat speak for the courts don?t see things our way.

Durbin also said the ?Senate cannot waive a 125-year-old rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on any election or appointment.? …

The bottom line here is that the Democrats were afraid to call a special election and let the voters decide who should replace Obama because a Republican might have won the seat. Now, the Democrats are afraid to accept Senator Burris because a Republican might be able to beat Burris in 2010.

So, are we to presume that this is all about campaigning?

Folks, regardless of what happens over the eligibility issue with the President-Elect, it appears that our dear leaders in Congress are going to tie themselves in knots over worrying about keeping a majority in both Houses. Can they possibly do any actual governing while putzing around with federalist issues?

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 09, 2009 (boomark / email).