Blagojevich names Barack Obama's successor

The black caucus in the house has no say in Senate matters.

The Senate leadership including Dick Durbin has made it clear even after the appointment that they won't accept him. If Blago resigns and Quinn appoints him, they probably will. Silly ... but true. I would be very surprised if he gets seated.

 

The first line that you cite says, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." That means that the Senate can determine whether or not to seat a member. Talk is that they will refer it to the rules committee, which would eat enough time for Blago to be impeached or forced out and a new appointment to be made. They might also appeal to the fact that the IL SOS won't certify the appointment.

My bet is that the Senate will not seat Burris and will prevail in any challenge.

 

I think governor appointment was probably for the sake of speed as opposed to an election which takes time and money. It would probably be good perhaps to return the selection in this case to the state senate or house.

 

From what I understand, by Illinois State Constitution, if an election is authorized (which means funding as well...)...... but it wasn't, so the Governor can appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy until the next election:

The Governor is still holding office and has neither been removed from office nor resigned: Anything he does within the powers of his office.... even signing or vetoing bills.... are still valid, even though he is under the shadow of investigation: If this were not so then in any similar situation where leaders continued in the capacity of their office but also were engaged in criminal activity....... it would undo all laws processed during that period of time....... what a nightmare of red tape, doing and undoing that would be for all aspects of government. An investigation and possibly even an indictment does not undo the fact that Blagojevich was already qualified and elected and still occupying the office of governor at the time of this appointment.

An indictment is not a conviction. This is one reason why I think it is stupidity on the part of the FBI to allow this case to break public before there was actually an action greater that just a bully and braggadocious talk. People can put stupid dreams to words...... but it sort of takes some kind of contract or exchange of words to nail an intent to do wrong...... otherwise, it is just expressed thoughts, however inappropriate ....... and it is dangerous and slippery ground when enforcement and law has to get inside people's heads to prosecute for thoughts.

The action by the FBI, certainly did not stop the action they wanted to prevent........ that of stopping the governor of making an appointment while they completed their investigation...... which makes me think that they still had loose ends to tie before securing a case worthy of indictment. And the action of the FBI, was a public notice to any and all who might participate in accepting the appointment to avoid any appearance of graft in the process. So, if they were still in need of more evidence than recorded conversations of what the governor said about how he wanted to gain from the appointment, they alerted all interested parties from the probablity of closing the deal to produce the evidence that it was more than just talk.

(I have no personal doubts regarding Blagojevich's criminal intent.....but, with no more than has been presented publicly, I don't consider that it is convicting evidence in a just court. It is possible that the FBI is in possession of more evidence than the conversations which they've made public. I hope this is the case.)

 

This is correct. The appointment is valid, but the Senate does not have to accept it. They apparently can decide not to.

 

There is much that they can do, even if they seat him: For him to speak or be recognized from the floor..... requires the acknowledgement of the chair. If he wishes to offer or sponsor a bill, it must have a reading and come out of a committee. For him to have any real significance on legislation requires being appointed to a or several committees in which bills are introduced, discussed, and ammended and brought to the floor or die in committee. IOW, if they are reluctant in seating him...... the Senate can act, as a body in agreement, to practically nullify all power of office which he could have except a vote on the floor. This action, if carried out, would prove to be a slap in the face for the people of Illinois who expected full representation of their state within the US Senate.

 

I am not sure that is true. That was under different circumstances, and all they had to do was seat him and then evict him, as I understand it. Furthermore, I am not sure that decision would stand today. As I understand it, it was incorrect. The Senate has control over who it seats, not the courts.