Saturday, January 3, 2009
burris and blagojevich
so this blagojevich nomination of ronald burris to u. s. senate is a fiasco. everyone, politicians, newspapers, acquaintances, illinois citizens, being very politic, speak highly of burris. supposedly burris would be an excellent candidate to the senate. but the senate does not need to accept a member to its ranks when that person has been posted after such a scandal involving the naming of that post. everyone can see that blagojevich needs to be impeached, and that the senate needs to dismiss blagojevich's appointment. while i am not an expect in the law, i think that the constitution can be looked at in this case, considering we really haven't had a situation like this despite how some legal experts try to relate this situation to previous scandals. article i, section 5 of the constitution reads, "each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members." so obviously the senate can judge the legitimacy of an election. the question is can it judge a gubernatorial appointment. but i say that this appointment is contingent upon an election therefore can be judged, and furthermore point out that the senate can judge "qualifications" which i believe would include the circumstances of the appointment. and despite the high opinion people seem to have of mr. burris, i think we should take into consideration the fact that burris knew the situation he was putting himself in when he accepted this "appointment." the news talks about how calculating blagojevich can be, but could burris be just as calculating? what kind of person would accept this appointment knowing just how controversial it would be? why would burris not just wait like a person we would hope to be chosen as senator would? burris obviously wanted this position badly enough that he was willing to take it under dishonorable circumstances.