I haven’t paid much attention to the political scandal concerning Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. It looked ass though it was turning into a witch hunt to damage Barack Obama rather than focus on the criminal activities of Blagojevich.
Even a cursory glance at the known facts seem to reveal a few things.
Blagojevich is a corrupt politician
Barack Obama has broken his promise of a transparent administration
Barack Obama is not criminally involved
The Illinois political machine is broken
Out of all of this what I have found the most interesting is the refusal by Senate Democrats to seat Roland Burris who is the pick of Rod Blagojevich to fill the seat vacated by Barack Obama.
I’m not defending Blagojevich in anyway, he should be removed from office, but he has not been and since he has not been does he not still hold the right to fill the empty seat?
Of even more interest to me than if the governor does or does not have the right to appoint Burris is, does the Senate have the right to refuse to seat him and if so based upon what?
When reading Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America I see the following:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
- Roland Burris is above the age of 30
- Roland Burris has been a United States citizen for more than nine years
- Roland Burris is a inhabitant of the state of Illinois
Being that he meets these three requirements I am curious as to how it is the Senate Democrats can rightfully refuse to seat him.
Trust me, I’ve no desire to see another Dem fill a Senate seat, but at the same time it appears to me that the Senate Democrats are acting beyond what is allowed them and I find that far more disturbing.