Democrats to Block Burris from the Senate

The really descriptive part comes from

WASHINGTON — As U.S. Senate leadership developed an elaborate set of contingency plans today to keep Roland Burris from taking over President-elect Barack Obama’s seat, the disputed appointee promised not to “create a scene” when the Senate convenes next week.

If Burris shows up Tuesday to claim the seat given to him by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich,  the outcomes range from a denial of entry to a limbo where he can hire staff but not vote. …

Should Burris appear in Washington without that certification, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the Senate floor, said a Democratic official briefed on  Senate leaders’ plans.

See Burris’ court filing HERE.

Uh, yeah — did you see that “armed police offers” part? Really — who could make this stuff up? Keep reading the above article at its link — it provides plenty of information concerning this issue. then goes on to say the following:

H/T Via Ace of Spades HQ, which also linked to this article that notes that, indeed, it does make a difference if the Illinois Secretary of State doesn’t sign off on Blagojevich’s pick. Which is why Burris is even now suing said SoS in order to require him to sign off on the pick. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell the primary argument against signing off on the Burris pick is that the guy who picked him is a notoriously corrupt suckweasel who’s on track to being yet another Illinois governor thrown in jail while still in office. I’m not sure that this qualifies as a legitimate cause for refusal, under the Illinois state constitution. I am pretty sure that the Illinois Supreme Court is going to be hard-pressed to make a statement on the subject before Tuesday – and, no, the US Senate is not going to wait for a mere state to resolve its petty provincial problems, either. All of this means that on Tuesday we may be treated to the sight of an elderly African-American being led off the Senate floor in handcuffs because his sitting there would be contrary to the collective wish of old, white Democrats – and as for the One? Well, he’s already washed his hands of the matter.

Barack Hussein Obama’s official response (as noted from the final link in the above quotation) puts the would-be President-elect in a very wrongful position. For one thing, Patrick Fitzgerald has not formally indicted the Illinois Governor for anything (only having made accusations) and won’t likely be doing so for another 90 days. Therefore, the Governor is completely within his right to appoint whomever he chooses — insofar as said appointment is done legally — to fill Barack Hussein Obama’s old Senate seat.

However, even if the Governor is formally convicted of wrong-doing (assuming a conviction occurs sometime beyond 3 months from now, well beyond when an appointment is to be made), my view is that would not infringe on Blogajevich’s ability to make a senatorial appointment, especially considering that the one for whom he was to allegedly receive a bribe is no longer being considered. Show me where that doesn’t make legal sense.

Also, be sure to check out Fox News’ account.

Update: Another opinion.


Ballot Update: OK State Rep Ritze Pre-fills Bill


Oklahoma Representative Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow) has pre-filed a bill, requiring candidates for public office to submit a copy of their Birth Certificates. Ritze is a professor of Forensic Science and a physician, and was just elected to his first term in the legislature in November 2008. Ritze introduced his bill because he does not believe that President-Elect Barack Obama has demonstrated that he meets the constitutional qualifications.

Ritze also says that he is trying to persuade U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe to object to counting electoral college votes for Obama, when Congress counts the electoral votes on January 8.

The Oklahoma legislature does not convene until February. Oklahoma legislators are free to pre-file bills, but the Oklahoma legislature’s web page does not yet have the text of pre-filed bills, so the text of Ritze’s bill is not available. Since presidential nominees of qualified parties do not actually file for the November ballot in any state, it is not clear how Ritze’s bill can accomplish its objective, relative to general election presidential nominees of qualified parties.

The last paragraph notwithstanding, I think the point of initiatives such as this is to fix the system now and going forward, so that we can begin rectifying the State-based electoral system for federal candidates. Would it be great to make something like this retroactive? Absolutely, and there’s a good chance it wouldn’t even be unconstitutional, since it’s up to the States on how they wish to pursue federal office elections. However, I doubt that retroactivity will be a goal for this bill (though I’d be happy to be wrong).

A current lisiting of State-based initiatives can be found here.