• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roland Burris Senate Seat

Gladiator

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
660
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a link to a thread under Breaking News:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...h-name-roland-burris-obama-s-senate-seat.html


Here is a link to a summary of the US Supreme court Case, Powell v. McCormack

Powell v. McCormack


Here is a link to a discussion of Powell v. McCormack, which states that the Senate and the House have limited powers to refuse seating a member.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...n-senate-not-seat-coleman.html#post1057843455


The Senate has the power to expell any member with a 2/3 vote. The Senate has limited legal authority to refuse to seat a member.


..
 
Last edited:
Yes but the question is, is there any reason to block this man from taking the seat? What is the point of blocking Burris, a supposed innocent?

I've heard that Burris however is not completely innocent, and has faults from his own past that the members of Congress may be considering.
 
Crowtche said:
Yes but the question is, is there any reason to block this man from taking the seat? What is the point of blocking Burris, a supposed innocent?

I've heard that Burris however is not completely innocent, and has faults from his own past that the members of Congress may be considering.
Click to expand...

So did Powell, but the Supreme Court ruled that he must be seated. Burris will be the Senator that replaces Obama.
 
The allegations against Gov. Blagojevich, when proved or/and when he is actually charged with crimes will eventually be the basis of his impeachment.

But when Bill Clinton was impeached he continued to carry out his duties as POTUS without challenge.

Blago has not been charged, much less convicted or impeached.

His nomination of Burris is valid.

And let's remember WHY this matter was prematurely announced by the prosecutor.

It was to PREVENT Blago from nominating a candidate who was willing to pay for Obama's Senate seat.

Burris has been shown to be innocent of any scandal or dishonesty. So the prosecution's actions served their purpose. Blago did not get anything in exchange for Burris' nomination.

Justice has been served.

But if he is refused a seat it would be a miscarriage of justice.

Damn that Harry Reid.

:soap
 
Tucker Case said:
Powell was elected though. Burris is appointed. That may have some bearing on the case.
Click to expand...

Nope, only thing congress can rule on are his qualifications, according to a strict interpretation laid down by the Powell case. Elected? Appointed? Doesn't matter.
 
Ironically, the scandal-plagued governor would be allowed onto the Senate floor, since sitting governors are allowed floor privileges. But Lucio Guerrero, Blagojevich's spokesman, said the governor had not decided whether to go to Washington.

With Democratic leaders vowing to bar anyone appointed by Blagojevich because of his alleged attempt to sell Obama's seat, as federal authorities charge, leaders hope to stall Burris with paperwork. Senate rules require that an incoming senator's selection be certified by the secretary of state for his home state, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has declined to sign a certification of Blagojevich's appointment of Burris."

Officers could bar Burris from Senate -- baltimoresun.com







..
 
Gladiator said:
"The aide said Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris' appointment because it does not conform with the Senate rule requiring that the secretary of state — in this case, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White — must sign the certificate of appointment along with the governor."


CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Secretary of the Senate rejects Burris appointment « - Blogs from CNN.com



..
Click to expand...
I'd say that about does it.
 
Gladiator said:
"The aide said Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris' appointment because it does not conform with the Senate rule requiring that the secretary of state — in this case, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White — must sign the certificate of appointment along with the governor."


CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Secretary of the Senate rejects Burris appointment « - Blogs from CNN.com



..
Click to expand...

Now THAT's a reason. I stand corrected. Game, set, and match. Buh bye, Burris.

BTW, good decision. Burris said that his appointment was from God, and we all know what happened the last time someone said his position was ordained by God, don't we? All hell broke loose.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Now THAT's a reason. I stand corrected. Game, set, and match. Buh bye, Burris.

BTW, good decision. Burris said that his appointment was from God, and we all know what happened the last time someone said his position was ordained by God, don't we? All hell broke loose.
Click to expand...
Who said that?
 
I'd like to see the source.
 
Congratulations, Illinois Senator Burris. I think he has handled himself with class. Senator Burris has skillfully avoided negative comments about others, including about his detracors.


..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom