Burris bruhaha

My new favorite morning TV show is Morning Joe on MSNBC. But this morning I am a bit dismayed with them. A discussion on the refusal to seat Burris yesterday by the Senate leadership revealed that Joe and Mika feel that he should be seated. Now there have been numerous articles on both sides of this issue and it IS a very difficult and complicated problem, but after reading the 17th Amendment and Article I sec 2 of the CONSTITUTION (remember that document?) I am ready to take a definitive stand. This Senate vacancy is very different from others. The governor of Illinois is compromised and the issue IS this Senate seat. He is on tape indicating that he WANTS money for the seat....he wants positions on various boards for his wife. Virtually no one defends Blago (with the exception of a few partisan driven Republicans). Herein lies the heart of this issue...Anyone appointed by him should refuse the appointment on the grounds of decency and demand a special election. It would be very difficult to turn down this powerful and prestigious position, but that would be the right thing to do. People keep talking about the law and that Burris has met the Constitutional requirements and therefore should be seated. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding Adam Clayton Powell and the Supreme Court Case resulting from that set of circumstances in the late 60's. (I was in the House gallery when they voted to unseat Powell) However, the House and the Senate are very different bodies and the Powell Case really should not be the final word in this case. The Founders intended the Senate to be a body that would not be driven by the whims of the populous, so the original Constitution called for the state legislatures to select two senators. The House was to reflect the will of the people directly, there are different requirements for members, and the term of a House member is only 2 years rather than 6 for a Senator. This issue is unique to the Senate and that is how it should be discussed. When the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 it required Senators to be elected by the people of the state. If a vacancy existed the intent was to HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION!!!!!!! The governor (if the legislature provided) could make a TEMPORARY appointment in lieu of the upcoming special election. Granted, this appointment power has been misused and appointed Senators have served out terms, many for prolonged periods, but now is the time to examine the process and get it right. The issue is not whether Roland Burris is qualified to sit in the Senate (is he?), the issue is whether the current governor of Illinois should make any appointment with a dark cloud over his head. The seat should be filled with an election. If the people of Illinois do not want to pay for an election the seat could remain vacant. SIMPLE. The "letter" of the law and the "spirit" of the law is important to consider but no one seems to be on that page.

FLASH...the secretary of state of Illinois is now saying his signature is not required to seat Burris. What is his purpose then?