Comments on: Senate Posturing vs. State Sovereignty

By: Dave_Schuler

Dave_Schuler — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:54:50 +0000

Historically, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution has been construed as granting to the Senate the power to limit its own membership.

By: sh0ter

sh0ter — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:26:55 +0000

Well if Reid had enough political clout he could seat him, and then vote to expel him. The courts have previously ruled that the Senate can't add any additional requirements for being a member of congress, ie not admitting the appointee because he was pick by the disgraced governor, however it is not unconstitutional to remove said member after they have been seated.

Its safe to wager that Reid knows this and this is not so much posturing, but a warning shot.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:35:00 +0000

Sigh… I see that Obama has expressed disappointment with Blagojevich's appointment… More to come….

By: BlagoGate III: Disgraced Illinois Governor Appoints Former Illinois Attorney General And Gubernatorial Candidate Roland Burris To President-Elect Obama’s Vacant Senate Seat | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:01:20 +0000

[...] Campbell of The Moderate Voice (Centrist [...]

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:04:01 +0000

It appears Reid agrees with you. He didn't say he would not allow him as a Senator. He said “will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.” (from your link)

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:15:00 +0000

I'm no constitutional lawyer either, but I agree with your analysis. I think the governor can appoint the US Senator and Reid can do nothing about it. Reid is all about posturing anyway.

Obama, on the other hand, IS a constitutional lawyer and respects states' rights more than most republicans (who only claim a limited federal government unless infringing upon states' rights would help that person politically). It will be interesting to see what he does, particualry since it is his old seat.... But I think Obama will just still clear and say it's not his place to intervene. And he would be right in saying that.

This is a Democratic mess and anything Obama does will only harm him. Best to stay out of it.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:02:32 +0000

Thought-provoking post, Tony.

Just one comment:

You mention that "The 17th Amendment states '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.”

And infer: "What this means is that it is up to the state to fill the open seat; it is NOT at the whim or the pleasure of the members of the United States Senate."

I just want to quote Section 8 of the U.S. Constitiution: "The Congress shall have power to ...declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."

What this means is that it is up to Congress to declare war and it is NOT at the whim or the pleasure of the President

I know this is a very controversial "constitutional" issue, and I am familiar with the duties and responsibnilities given by the Constitution to the commander in chief, and his repsonsibility to defend the nation, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is, and how little attention both"sides" pay to both the Constitution and to the "Act," and how often both have been violated..

My point is that if the Constitution can be (mis)interpreted on such important issues as war and peace, some will certainly try to (mis) interpret it in the case of the Blago Senate nomination.

Anyway, good post and point (Have I opened up a can of worms?).