Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> The Faculty Lounge

Academic

: The Faculty Lounge

Memo to Senator Reid: The Senate could expel Burris

By Calvin Massey

  The New York Times is reporting that Senator Roland Burris has released an affidavit that admits he was contacted by deposed Gov. Blago's brother to see if Burris would donate to or help with fund raising for the embattled Governor.  The most recent affidavit discloses that Senator Burris had three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, the Governor's brother, and several other conversations with people asociated with Gov. Blago on the subject of the Senate appointment.  Burris says he did not contribute to the Governor.  In January, testifying during the Illinois legislature's impeachment proceedings, Senator Burris was asked if he had talked to Gov. Blago's brother about his desire to be appointed to the vacant Senate seat.  After conferring with his attorney Burris said he had talked to some of "his friends" about his desire to be appointed. When asked again if he had spoken to any of the named people, including Blago's brother, Burris identified a conversation with Lon Monk but failed to mention the three conversations with the Governor's brother.  He did not specifically deny having those talks.  Pages 941 and 942 of the transcript give the colloquy.  Later in the testimony Burris was asked about the identity of those "friends." Burris replied that "one of them" was his law partner.  See page 998.  When asked if he had talked to anybody besides Lon Monk he replied "No, I can't recall."  See page 999.  Expanding upon that answer, Burris said "I can certainly give you a few names, but I can't give you the thousands of people who were involved in this."  See page 1000. Now the Times is reporting that there are calls for Senator Burris to resign because he lied to the legislators.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is said to be "reviewing" Senator Burris's latest disclosures.  Harry, the Senate has the power to expel a member.  You didn't want him there in the first place, and seated him only because you thought Powell v. McCormack required that he be seated.  That was a correct reading of Powell, but Harry, Powell did not speak to the quite separate, and textually unconstrained, power to expel a member.  Over to you, Harry.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on February 15, 2009 (boomark / email).