Jan 07 2009

Dems Must Seat Senator Burris – Harry Reid Is Trashing Our Constitution

Published by at 8:58 am under All General Discussions

Major Update: It seems Senate Majority Ego Reid is surrendering his unconstitutional blockade of Senator Burris. What a putz!

Major Update: Even the Illinois Secretary of State agrees his signature is not legally binding against seating Senator Burris, and Harry Reid has no legal standing to bar Senator Burris. What The SoS should do, then, is sign the paper and let’s begin to investigate Reid for playing Emperor. – end update

Americans are starting to seriously sour on the current crop of Democrat leaders (or should that be the current ‘crap’ of leaders?). Senate Majority Ego, Harry Reid, seems to have decided he is above the law and has designated himself judge and jury regarding Governor Blagojevich. Because only if Blagoyevich was found guilty and/or impeached would he have lost his powers as the top Executive of the State of Illinois. And since that has not happened, then Reid has unilaterally taken the law into his own hands by barring a legally designated Senator from participating in OUR government.

Harry Reid has attained the Inside-The-Beltway God Complex that inflicts many who serve in Congress – and boy does he have it bad. He thinks some yahoo Senator from Nevada can tell the State of Illinois who their Senator can be. His ego is knows no bounds.

What Americans are sick of is people who abuse the power of the offices they have been entrusted with. And I can say a few political leaders are getting sick of it as well. I think former MD Lt Governor Michael Steele has said it best:

There is “no legal reason not to seat” Illinois’ Roland Burris to the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, Maryland’s former lieutenant governor, Michael Steele, told CNSNews.com on Monday. 

On talk radio yesterday Steele explained the situation correctly. Governor Blagojevich has the authority to designate Burris as the interim Senator to replace Obama. And since there is no law requiring the Secretary of State to confirm the Governor’s choice, the lack of a signature by the Secretary of State does not have any legal bearing. Therefore Harry Reid just made up some faux law to suite is power mad ego.

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein is not happy either:

On Burris, Reid said Feinstein was simply wrong. 

Talking to reporters earlier on Tuesday, Feinstein had said that failing to seat Burris would call into question the validity of “gubernatorial appointments all over the country.” 

“That’s not valid, her statement,” a smiling Reid told Politico. “I told her that. OK?” 

I am sick of people in power trying to live beyond their responsibility. Personally I think impeachment of Reid is called for since he clearly has highjacked our nation’s Constitution to suite his political whims. Since Reid has broken his pledge to uphold our laws, he is the one who should be ejected from his top Congressional position.

It is time for Americans to demand Reid step down from Majority Leader – and probably from his Senate seat. We don’t need demi-gods in the Senate. We need representatives of We The People who not only make the laws, but follow them.

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Dems Must Seat Senator Burris – Harry Reid Is Trashing Our Constitution”

  1. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Nothing will come of this, because it will all be downplayed. If Republicans controlled the Senate, I guarantee you the headlines of every paper and ‘news’casts would be:
    RACISTS REPS REFUSE TO SEAT BLACK MAN IN SENATE. But since the media is the propaganda wing of the democrat party (and has been for 4 decades), there is nothing to see here. Move along.

  2. Phil-351 says:

    I dont’ quite agree. I do think Harry Reid is a clown, and should step down, but don’t agree that this should be the reason. There is a lot of dissension happening in Illinois right now. Blago cannot even get support from his own appointees and cabinet. This is political meltdown of the highest order. Putting the brakes on this to slow it down is probably the right thing. Same as not seating Stuart Smiley for MN. Until there can be some sort of consensus from the home state, let them sit patiently on the sidelines.

  3. kathie says:

    There is what people feel about Blago and than there is the rule of law. What does the law say? As Governor he shall appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy.

  4. WWS says:

    The problem in Illinois is that the other Illinois dems are terrified of the impeachment hearings because Blago, if pushed, will reveal just how many of them were in on stuff with him. They keep trying to find an easy way out – there is none.

    Blago is calling the Dem’s bluff, and they have no idea how to deal with someone who does that. Prediction – dems fold like a cheap lawn chair and Blago keeps his seat.

    Blago is dead right on his main point – he didn’t do anything that every other Illinois politician hasn’t done in the ordinary course of business. That’s what the “Chicago Way” is all about!!!

    Hope’n Change, Baby!!! Let’s hope no one finds out how we really operate and change the subject if they find out!!!

  5. AJStrata says:

    Phil-351,

    This is not a matter of opinion or discussion. There are laws in place and our Constitution which mandate Reid is wrong. We don’t need to get consensus every time we invoke established law. That was done when the law was established.

  6. sbd says:

    Amendment 17 – Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    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.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    If the Legislature in Chicago wanted to strip Blago of his authority to appoint a Senator, they should have voted to make that happen right after he was arrested. They seem to be capable of getting together to start impeachment proceedings, but yet not to vote on the subject of that impeachment by voting to remove Blago’s authority.

    If you ask me, they did not remove his authority because they still believed that they would get who they wanted in that Senate seat from Blago using the impeachment as a negotiating tactic. Now they are mad that Blago took advantage of the situation by appointing someone they can’t complain about which gave him some credibility to his tarnished reputation.

    SBD

  7. lurker9876 says:

    Anyone notice that Hoyer and Pelosi are changing the process by excluding the Republicans in several committees and the “Hayek” economists or dissenting opinions in their hearings?

    I cannot stand Reid smiling before the media.

    Just wait…we’ll see an increasing disillusionment by Americans after seeing more Democratic tactics…more bills with increased spending and all.

    I understand last night that Reid is starting to look for a way out.

    Reid’s comment about Feinstein doesn’t bode well. Soon we will see the Democrats fighting among each other.

    But…let them. All we have to do is sit back and watch and chuckle.

  8. Phineas says:

    A senator can’t be impeached , as the word is technically used: the House has no role in the process. Rather, a majority of the chamber would have to vote to expel Reid. While I think Reid is an ass and a disgrace, you’ll never see the Democratic majority do that. I doubt a Republican majority would, either: if arrogance were a reason for expulsion, we’d almost never have a sitting senator.

    What I wonder is why the Democrats keep him as Majority Leader? While not as stupid as my own state’s Barbara Boxer, he is a political idiot of the first order. Just take the Burris case: he or his staff should have known they had no legal or political leg to stand on, yet they boxed themselves into a corner, anyway. It’s no wonder McConnell runs parliamentary rings around him. You’d think the Democrats would want someone at least minimally competent leading their side.

    BTW, the Las Vegas Review-Journal thinks Reid is very vulnerable in 2010. Let’s hope so.

  9. sbd says:

    Maybe it’s time to start discussing again the Reid Land Kickbacks since this illegal act has yet to be investigated and prosecuted!!

    SBD

  10. GuyFawkes says:

    Well, it’s pretty much a non-issue now. The AP is reporting that the Senate is going to seat Burris after all.

    I do appreciate the outrage however, AJ – the idea of spending taxpayer money to “impeach” a Senator with the current state of the country (two wars, a new President, the economy falling down around our ears) is very humorous. It’s nice to know that, no matter how bad things get, the focus of the GOP will always be to screw the Democrats, rather than do anything to actually help the country.

  11. sbd says:

    Phineas, you are incorrect in your statement regarding impeachment. The US Constitution Article I Section 2 vests the power of impeachment with the House of Representatives.

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article I section 3 give the Senate the right to try the impeachment.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once: Senator William Blount. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.

  12. KauaiBoy says:

    Right on point WWS—this is no aberration in Illinois (or anywhere else for that matter)—this is business as usual.

    Look for Blago to have a Vince Foster moment.

    Anyone have those Congressional approval ratings handy? My last check it was 8% which equates to the current idiocy rate in this country.

  13. Phineas says:

    SBD:

    You forget Article 1, section 5, paragraph 2:

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    I imagine this formed the Senate’s grounds for rejecting the House’s impeachment of Blount; otherwise, the House could meddle with the Senate whenever it wished. I believe common practice is the I.5.2 supercedes the clauses you cite. After all, the House would never have the Senate try one of its own members.

    (Now watch. Some wise-acre will find a case where that happened. 🙂 )

  14. Neo says:

    It seems that the (revised) thinking of Harry Reid is that “the war is lost” comment was referring to the war on Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

  15. GuyFawkes says:

    KauaiBoy:

    Yes, we should definitely keep a close eye on all approval ratings, and use them as a measure of effectiveness.

    Coincidentally, one came out earlier today, just before all the living Presidents go together for lunch. In summary:

    Clinton: 69%
    Carter: 64%
    H.W. Bush 60%

    Most recent numbers on the current resident, W. Bush: 28%

    Most recent on Obama: 82%

  16. bill says:

    They have no choice but to seat Burris — Bullhorns, sheets and fire hoses have long since been done away by sensible Democrats. Admittedly, there still may be a few Bull Connor Democrats in the Senate.

    The House is beginning to look a lot like the 1932 Reichstag elections in the Wiemar Republic of Germany. Pelosi Galore has demanded to be made der Fuhrer of the House with no room for those pesky Republicans to interfere with what goes on. Is that what America wanted, 52% of the people ruling with their ‘votes for freebies’ and what the country must kneel to?

    Reid in his incompetence, cannot seem to control the mice in the Senate. Which is a good thing.

    America’s freedoms and liberties are at stake.

    The Bamster has done what? Why he votes present better than anyone who has voted present before. Soon the nonsense stops. Congress’ approval stands in the single digits. And they are the ones that put together the budget that the Bamster is saddled with, yes they also own TARP, imagine that.

  17. Terrye says:

    Guy:

    Ah yes, the approval rating thing. I just love that. Now, let us look at Congress’s…Last I heard Pelosi’s was at 14.

    The fact that the media has decided to destroy Bush while they pander to Obama is surely going to make his life easier. Obama will have higher approval ratings so long as they run interference for him.

    For instance, so many Democrats like to say that Bush lied and people died. They like to say that Bush got us into an unnecessary war.

    But how often do you hear the press talk about the fact that Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad during his own impeachment hearings? Or that he went on television during the debate over the Iraqi Liberation Act and said that not only did Saddam have wmd, he {Clinton} promised us Saddam would use those weapons. No, that is all ancient history, just blame it all on Bush and go your merry way. It is easy to manipulate people when you let them.

    When the Democrats took control of the House the unemployment rate was 4.5%, the budget deficit was $150 billion and the economy was growing. Can you imagine the biased reporting we would be hearing if the Republicans had taken control in 2006.

    So, Bush’s rating is about 30%. Well, last I heard 48% think Obama did something illegal or unethical in regards to this freak show in Illinois. But don’t worry, if his numbers start to fall the media will come to his rescue.

    And btw, Bush won a second term…neither his father nor Carter did that. And so far neither has Obama.

    But so far we have the governor of New Mexico bowing out of his administration while his friend and mentor the Governor of Illinois makes a complete fool of him. Yep, the media has its work cut for it if it is going to keep Obama’s numbers up. But I am sure they will try. After all, 8 out of 10 of them are registered Democrats.

  18. Terrye says:

    And btw Guy, how can Obama have an approval rating of 82% when he is not even president and almost half the voters did not even vote for him? What a crock. I can remember when Bush’s numbers were almost 90% after 9/11. And at least he actually was president.

  19. GuyFawkes says:

    Terrye:

    Wow, where to start. Okay:

    – Clinton was impeached on the last day of the bombing campaign in Iraq. So, he couldn’t have “ordered it” to distract from the impeachment.

    – I’m fairly certain Clinton didn’t tie us into a war in Iraq that killed 4,000+ American soldiers and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis, and which is going to cost us about $1 trillion. You see, there is a slight difference between being wrong about WMDs, and being spectacularly, horrificly wrong.

    – Please name the policies and laws passed by the 110th Congress that caused the collapse of the economy.

    – President Elects can have approval ratings, too. Honestly, it’s not that complicated: “Do you approve of the performance of President Elect Obama, yes or no?”

    I realize that it’s embarrassing to be cheerleading for a guy with the lowest approval ratings in the history of approval ratings. But hey – he earned it! But I will admit that even I am surprised that H. W. Bush has a lower rating than freakin’ Carter. Ouch.

  20. Terrye says:

    I never said that Clinton ordered the bombing to distract from the impeachment. In fact I don’t think he did it for that reason. My point is that the previous president was more than willing to take military action against Iraq and did so, even when he had domestic problems to deal with.

    The war in Iraq has not cost 1 trillion dollars, it has cost about $ 560 billion and why people have to lie about this over and over again is beyond me. And if Clinton had not made the removal of Saddam Hussein from power our national policy, if he had not stated that the man had wmd and was a threat to our country and if he had not stated that Saddam would be a threat to this country until and unless he was removed from power…it is unlikely that Bush would have been so willing to believe the same things. After all, if Clinton had resolved the stalemate instead of kicking the can down the road, it would not have been up to Bush to deal with at all. The truth is the Democrats voted for the war, they supported the war and for years they had talked about what a madman Saddam was and how he should be driven from Iraq. That is just a fact.

    I did not say it was impossible for a president elect to have an approval rating, I said it was a crock. Because he has not done anything but flap his gums. As for 82%, just keep telling yourself that. I guess all those people that think he is a crook or a liar give him high marks anyway, they must be Democrats.

    And Bush has had numbers that high when he was actually president and people knew who he was. Obama is a fairy tale. The real man has not begun to show himself, that is when the numbers will mean something.

    I did not say that the 110th did destroy the economy, I said that if the Republicans had taken over Congress two years ago after the Democrats had been in charge, we would be hearing that all time. Such is the bias. However, it is true that Bush was president for several years before this recent downturn and until the Democrats took control somehow we were getting along better. That is just a fact too. But why not ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd about how they handled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and see what they say. That might help clear things up for you.

    The truth is this is a global down turn, I don’t think that either the president or the Congress are totally responsible for this, not alone any way. It is not that simple.