Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The Democrats vs. the states

The chief cause of most of our national legal and political problems is the loss of power by states to the federal government, a shift that has taken place mostly as a result of Constitutionally illegitimate court decisions compounded by cowardly politicians who have let it happen. The recent dust-up over Illinois Gov. Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's U. S. Senate seat is only the latest example of politicians who simply ignore the existence of the Constitution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to refuse to seat Burris. Now whatever your view of Blagojevich or Burris, there is one thing that we know without a doubt: the Constitution leaves it up to the states. Reid has no business telling Illinois what to do. Blagojevich is still governor (even though most of the rest of us wish he weren't), and has perfect right to make the appointment.

Whether Burris serves as Senator from Illinois is a matter for the people of Illinois to decide, not the U. S. Senate. Reid and the rest of the Senate need to keep their greedy hands off of Illinois's Senate seat.

3 comments:

Jackpot said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One Brow said...

Martin,

That's just not true. The Constitution explicitly empowers the legislature to control admittance. They can't choose who will come, butg they can shoose who won't.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Anonymous said...

"One Brow said...
Martin,

That's just not true. The Constitution explicitly empowers the legislature to control admittance. They can't choose who will come, butg they can shoose who won't."
===

Onebrow, the constitution says what it says. What you think it "explicitly empowers," however is not what it says---that is merely your conclusion, one which is not necessarily "true." Quite the contrary, actually.

The U.S Supreme Court has clearly rejected the "truth" of your conclusions. Quoting from the 1965 case of McCormack v Powell, they said:

"...it is argued that the House, and the House alone, has power to determine who is qualified to be a member..... Respondents insist...that a legislature's power to judge the qualifications of its members was generally understood to encompass exclusion or expulsion on the ground that an individual's character or past conduct rendered him unfit to serve...

[However],our examination of the relevant historical materials leads us to the conclusion that petitioners are correct and that the Constitution leaves the House without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution."