The Reaction to the Burris Appointment
originally posted at Grumblebear
Mencken famously noted that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” As I recall, at the time he was writing about the advertising industry, but current events confirm its general applicability. Or maybe it’s not intelligence but ignorance that’s the problem.
The ignorance of the American public regarding our history and our government and how it operates has been thoroughly documented, and no better proof can be offered by the headlines of today than the reactions to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to fill the senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama.
I’m a huge fan of exploring all of the different shades of gray, but in this case there is no gray there. There is absolutely nothing to discuss, other than that Blago ought to have done the right thing and stepped aside to let Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn make the appointment. Period. The end.
The U.S. constitution requires that when a senate seat becomes vacant between elections, the governor of that state must appoint a replacement. Until Blagojevich is impeached by the House (accomplished!) and tried and convicted by the Senate, he is the Governor of Illinois. End of discussion.
As for the Senate declining to seat Burris, this question has also been asked and answered by the seminal decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack. Harry Reid should know better!
Blagojevich is an incompetent, immature, unstable, unpopular failure of a governor. His popularity ratings were in the low teens before the federal indictment–the Illinois version of George W. Bush, but without W’s “charm.” I think it’s highly likely that he’ll be found guilty of any number of criminal acts when his case finally gets to court (if Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s early leaking of the indictment didn’t screw the pooch for the prosecution). And, the standards for an impeachment trial being being different from and less stringent than for a criminal trial, there’s no question in my mind that he’ll be removed from office by the Illinois Senate.
But none of that has happened yet. In the meantime, like it or not, Rod Blagojevich is still the Governor of Illinois and still required to appoint a successor to Senator Obama, and the Senate is still required to seat his appointee.
Comment by Joshua on 10 January 2009 at 8:44 pm:
Good Post Stu, I agree completely that Reid is going to have to seat Burris. Do you have any thoughts on the merits of choosing Burris, absent the taint of Blagojevich. I don’t know much about him, beyond the Rolando Cruz controversy. Do you consider him a competent public servant? Or is the only cause he serves “Roland Burris”? Would you advise me to work for him, or not to work for him?
The US Const, Am. 17 says vacancies shall be filled by an election, unless the state legislature decides to empower the governor to make the appointment, which the IL legislature did by passing a law in the 1940s. I still think a joint legislative resolution would have been sufficient to remove the authorization, at least until Blago gets bounced by the state senate.
Comment by Jilly Moe Bills on 10 January 2009 at 9:50 pm:
Not attacking, but wondering: What precedent is there supporting your theory that a joint resolution can supersede an act passed by the assembly and signed by the governor?
Comment by Segen on 11 January 2009 at 12:55 pm:
Josh, I’ve been watching a lot of “Chicago Tonight” with Carol Marin and a lot of her guests seem to think that Roland Burris is a dud–and would never be a Senator if he had to face an election (Could Roland Burris stand up against moderate Republican Mark Kirk for the seat next time around?).
There has been a lot of talk about Burris being the only black person in the Senate and that a black person needs to be there to stick up for black issues–but the Chicago black community does not feel that Burris has put the community first–it’s always been Roland Burris.
Also, during his tenure as state’s attorney, Burris had the opportunity to have a shining moment during the capital punishment discourse…his staff was really urging him to take a stand against capital punishment, but Burris sat that one out apparently for political reasons.
To answer your question, I’d say Roland Burris serves Roland Burris. Not sure if I would work for him without deeper investigation of his public service.
Comment by Joshua on 11 January 2009 at 5:04 pm:
Jilly Moe Bills, I wrote a more lengthy post supporting this claim, and I’m not aware of any precedent, but as far as I know this is a unique case. Off the top of my head I can’t think up another scenario where this theory may hold up, and it is just a theory as I stated in my previous post, but the US Constitution vests the decision of whether or not to give the governor appointment power solely with the state legislature. If I remember correctly, the 17th Amendment was passed following a series of scandals where state legislatures, which previously chose US Senators, were essentially selling U.S. Senate Seats, so when we shifted to direct election of Senators, state legislatures were given an option of empowering the governor to pick, rather than picking directly, to fill vacancies.
Presumably a joint resolution by the state house and senate, in absence of the 1940 statute, saying roughly “resolved, the illinois general assembly hereby authorizes gov. rod blagojevich to fill the senate vacancy left by barack obama” would have been sufficient to give the governor this power. It would have never been necessary to pass a bill into law for the legislature to authorize the appointment. IF a resolution would be sufficient to grant the power, it seems it should be sufficient to deny a power previously granted, since the underlying authority is in the US Constitution.
I haven’t seen this theory seriously examined anywhere other than Urbanagora, and I’m not sure if this approach has been used in any other states. What do you think?
Would you please consider using a different anon, this one is confusing and silly. Kofi was a lot of fun