It seems odd that after commenting last week that he would not push the envelope, Roland Burris would actually try to get seated at the Senate. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I would respect what the law/rules state.
I am NOT a Constitutional Scholar, nor do I have a JD behind my name. Never attended law school either. But I am an educated American citizen. From what I read, given that the Illinois Secretary of State has not signed off on Burris' appointment by Governor Rod Blagojevich. Some say the role of the Sec of State is administrative and symbolic. If that's the case, Illinois should do away with the ceremony. Let's be green! Save a tree (or sheet of paper).
From the point of the Senate, and particularly leader Harry Reid, the Senate has the right to accept/deny seating of any person. Given all of this, it appears to be that Burris should not be seated at this time.
There are a few questions.
- Why does Burris feel he needs to be seated today? Another symbolic gesture? Governor Patterson of New York has yet to appoint Caroline Kennedy or another person to the Senate yet.
- Which law/rule holds true? Each state has their own rules regarding filling an empty seat. In most situations, federal law supersedes state law. But there is a difference between appointment and actual seating, so both may be right. However, there is a question of whether a Senate rule is stronger than state law.
- Beyond my first question, why does Burris feel he is the appropriate person to fill the vacancy? He said he had nothing to do with Blagojevich's prior dealings. Even if true, he could wait until Illinois settles the debate. Whoever is ultimately given the power to appoint will choose Burris if he is the best person for the job.
Interesting that just a few months ago, the Democrats were looking for a filibuster-proof pool, yet they are short a few heads at the moment and that looks unlikely to change.
