So on Monday, the Senate agreed to seat Roland Burris, who was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat.
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Senate's decision. They decided to seat Burris after reviewing "new credentials presented today" and because he agreed to testify against Blagojevich in his impeachment. I'm curious to know what new credentials were presented to justify his appointment. What could the man have done in the past month or so that would be significant enough for the Senate to review it and decide to seat him?
Also, I'm not an expert on Blagojevich's impeachment, but if Burris was connected enough with him to make a valuable testimony against him, wouldn't that also imply that he is guilty of participating in the corrupt exchange? I guess the Senate doesn't have any constitutional right to fill Obama's vacancy, and they would have to wait until the next governor of Illinois was sworn in to get a new senator. And, after all, he's one man of 100 - it's not the absolute end of the world to have a senator you don't agree with represent you. Accepting Burris was probably the most practical option, even if not everyone is happy about it.
Personally, I think the Blagojevich scandal should prompt the states to amend their state constitutions, or Congress to amend the US Constitution, and establish that Senate vacancies be filled by some sort of vote. Putting that much power of appointment in the hands of an individual obviously is putting too much faith in his/her moral conscience, and is a problem that needs to be remedied.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/burris.senate/index.html?section=cnn_latest
2 comments:
The constitutional amendment proposal is certainly interesting, and altgough it would be helpful, I believe the states should decide whether to put it to a special vote or not. In Illinois' defense, the only reason the Senate did not seat Burres is because the Illinois Secretary of State did not sign off on Blagojevich's choice. The Senate rules require that all states who appoint Senators must have it signed off by the Secretary of State. They bent the rules for Burres.
Also, I believe that Burres wasn't directly involved with the Blagojevich scandal, so I'm not sure why he would testify except to say that he didn't know anything.
I completely agree, there needs to be some reform. This Blagojevich scandal has really opened our eyes to the corruption going on. The states definitely need to look over their constitutions to prevent any of this from repeating in the future.
Post a Comment