January 06, 2009 07:50 PM UTC

Senate Refuses to Seat Roland Burris

•  
• by: redstateblues

The insanity continues as CNN reports:

Roland Burris was denied entry to the Senate chambers on Tuesday as he tried to claim the seat once held by President-elect Barack Obama.

Burris said the secretary of the Senate rejected his credentials, and therefore he would not be allowed access to the floor.

Timothy W. Wright III, an attorney for Burris, said the rejection of Burris’ credentials was unlawful.

“Our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath, all of which we think was improperly done and it is against the law of this land,” Wright said

Apparently, since Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to sign the certificate of appointment signed by Blagojevich, the Senate doesn’t consider the appointment legal yet. But that’s it.

I’m no constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, but this doesn’t sit well with me.

Whether they like the appointment being made by Blago or not, does that mean that they can simply say “no, thank you”? Can a party’s dislike of a particular politician (one who hasn’t yet been convicted of any crime, and still retains his office) trump the constitution? If so, then what’s to stop any state’s SoS from placing themselves in the way of a Senate appointment? Even if nothing else happens form this, it sets a terrible precedent.

Nobody likes the taste this appointment leaves on the tongue–it feels like Blago is pulling a fast one on everyone. That may be, but would the Dems rather let Blago win one solitary battle, or will they place their own desires above the validity of the process? I guess the answer is obvious.

The last eight years have been filled with the majority determining itself to be above the Constitution. I sincerely hope that this will be resolved without the next four years looking like an adjusted re-run of Republican rule.