The Congressional Research Service Says the Senate Can Exclude Burris

Jane (here, here, and here) and bmaz (here, here, and here) have been diligently chronicling the continuing saga of seating Roland Burris. In the last week, we’ve seen Reid and Durbin scream Go! Stop! Go! at Burris.

But it turns out, since last Monday, they’ve had a Congressional Research Service study explaining whether or not they have to seat Burris, one they seem to have lost in all the excitement. It gives a basis I’ve not heard yet on which to exclude Burris (no link yet). 

Under the Powell decision and rationale, and under the express constitutional grant of authority, the Senate (and House) may, in addition to examining “qualifications” of Members-elect, examine the “elections” and “returns” of their own Members, that is, whether an individual presenting valid credentials has been “duly” chosen. A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), clearly affirmed the right of the Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and seating of its own Members.

[snip]

Additionally, the Senate has from time-to-time examined the election or selection process (prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Senators were selected by state legislatures) to see if corruption or bribery has so tainted the process as to call into question its validity.

All that says, really, is to look beyond just Powell to Roudebush as well to see whether or not the Senate can exclude Burris if it wants (bmaz assures me he will look up Roudebush once he gets done with his actual lawyering today).  And that corruption or bribery is fair game.

That said, even with Burris’ admission that he talked to Lon Monk about the seat, the way in which Blago’s defense-or-maybe-not lawyer Sam Adam Jr. brokered the appointment, and other dubious ties between Burris and Blago, it’s not clear that Congress yet has a clear case that Burris’ appointment–as distinct from Blago’s earlier attempts to sell the seat–involved bribery or any corruption outside the norm in Chicago politics. 

Update: Lawrence Tribe weighs in on the "they can exclude Burris" side. Note, this appears to have been published before Obama said he was staying out of this. 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

0 Responses to The Congressional Research Service Says the Senate Can Exclude Burris

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @JRSigety @IanPGunn I admire the go git em attitude, but you are going to live tweet a stinking misdemeanor arraignment?? Heh.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @joshgerstein @johngramlich Come on Josh, this will make things peachy again!
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Trump's America https://t.co/ZEyFD5Z5Ca
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Similarly, there is no reason for Clintons to drop out, if they quit being whiny ass titty babies. https://t.co/qJub2Bij7u
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Pete Rose has a point https://t.co/UCRPDf2POk
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DavidPurdum @WALLACHLEGAL @Norm_Clarke The man has a point.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ggreenwald: To belittle Sanders, Dem pundits insisted Primary Season head-to-head polls are worthless. They've now overnight declared t…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DLind @radleybalko @LilianaSegura Yes, been saying it for a while!
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @DLind: @bmaz @radleybalko @LilianaSegura sorry did somebody say IIRIRA https://t.co/p8lrxJGm3N
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @OKnox Packers too.....Do it for Nibbles!
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @LilianaSegura: "I suspect that there have may well been innocent people who were executed" after AEDPA, a former WH lawyer told me. htt…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @radleybalko: Tired of people excusing Clinton's crime policy as "well-meaning." It was cynical and crassly political. See AEDPA: https…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
January 2009
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031