Folks:
I have no horse in this race - I'm simply ANGRY as an Illinois resident at potentially being denied equal representation in the US Senate.
I am a registered Republican with no political record whatsoever. If Judicial Watch would find it useful, I would be pleased to have you add me as co-plaintiff in this action.

The Law is the law and I am glad judicial watch is upholding that. Something fishy is going on here and i hope race does not have anything to do with it. Clearly Burris had nothing to do with Blagojevich, but the Senate was not having that. They want to appoint who they want, maybe someone who will play ball and does not think outside the box.

Is not the US Senate made up of a lot of lawyers?

I think even a grade school kid could look at the US Constitution and some US Supreme Court cases and come to a firm conclusion that what the US Senate is doing by blocking Mr. Burris is completely unconstitutional. I've tried to see if there is some gray area. There is no gray area!

According to the US Constitution and Supreme Court presedence, the US Senate must seat Mr. Burris.

I consider myself to be an independent. I think I have leaned more to the Democratic side.

I'm a Conservative also, but as of now the suit filed on behalf of Mr. Vincent, lacks merit and should be dismissed. He also lacks standing.

The 17th Amendment certainly applies, but so does the rest of the US Constitution...as do applicable parts of the constitution of the state (Illinois).

Article 1, Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior..."

The Rules of the United States Senate expressly require that a Certificate of Appointment be presented...and state that the governor AND secretary of state of the state "certify" the appointment. Until that is done the person appointed does not have the required credentials.

If Jesse White the Illinois Secretary of State is convinced by others (his party's leaders) to certify the appointment, then all is settled. If he continues to refuse to do so...the legal mechanism to compel him to do so is called a "Writ of Mandamus" and must be obtained from the Illinois Supreme Court. Not the Federal courts.

The United States Senate has not denied Mr. Burris a seat due to any consideration yet, other than his failure to have presented a complete "Certificate of Appointment" as required by the Rules, which the Senate is authorized to set under Article 1, Section 5.

Furthermore...nothing in the Constitution requires that a citizen have representation by 2 senators at every moment, or specify a time-frame.

Lastly, neither Marbury v. Madison nor the decades old Powell decision apply at this time. Mr. Burris has failed to properly present credentials.

The suit to resolve this would need to be Burris v. White in the Illinois Surpreme Court for the required "Writ of Mandamus".

I respect Judicial Watch overall...but this is a poorly designed filing and terribly flawed.

Donn Baca
Chicago
http://www.right-fight.blogspot.com/

It's about time that someone is taking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task. The U.S. Senate itself is a bit of an anachronism, based on the House of Lords, which in turn was premised on the Council of Barons mid-12th Century England. The ego of Harry Reid, re the seating of Burris, illustrates how out-of-touch and useless the U.S. Senate is. The 17th Amendment, and Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) make it clear that the Senate has but ceremonial
authority when it comes to Seating Senators. Not sure what law school Senator Reid graduated from, but Reid has displayed his white-sheet bigotry as well as his incompetence as a Senator. Kudos to Judicial Watch.

I agree. Obama seems totally clueless about the Constitution of which he is deemed to be such a scholar.

Maybe that's why Obama didn't recognize the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen and that he doesn't quite qualify under those Constitutional requirements.

Who ends up paying for this lawsuit? Exactly, the taxpayers. Makes a lot of sense for something like this when Burris is going to be sworn in. Some things in this country are just plain dumb, and this lawsuit is one of them.

what about the moral law. All you know how to read is the constitution. The Govenor was arrested. Why should he enjoy the right to make this very important decision. What equal representation are we worried about, nothing has happened for the last few years and nothing will change going forward.

Senator Reid and the Senate have every right to not seat Burris, no matter what the Supreme Court said in 1969. The Court was wrong, and Congress is not obligated to follow a court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution gives them the sole right to refuse to seat anyone they judge should not be in the Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in this matter, and that's perfectly clear by Article 1 section 5. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,"

The Justices of the Supreme Court cannot intervene as it would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional. What the Court did in Powell v. McCormack was wrong and their reasoning in that opinion is idiotic. If the Senate has the sole Constitutional power to judge elections, returns and qualifications, it is illogical that they would have to admit someone into the Senate, just to vote to get them out. The Court made up something never contemplated by the Framers. They took two separate and distinct powers of the Senate and combined them into a rule that did not exist until they pulled it out of their infamous Constitutional penumbra. If looked at with just a once of common sense one would see right through the stupidity and arrogance of the Court in Powell. If someone is unqualified or unfit to be in the Senate, why would the Senate have to seat them, just so they could kick them out with a two-thirds vote? It makes absolutely no sense at all and that clearly was not the intent of the Framers. When the Senate kicked out Albert Gallatin in 1794, they did not use the two thirds vote the Court has set in Powell, because it had nothing to do with disorderly behavior, but with his qualifications. A two-thirds vote is not needed to keep Burris from permanently holding the Senate seat as this is not about his behavior. This a problem with his appointment, which would fall squarely into Election, Returns and Qualification to be a US Senator.

"It is obvious, that a power must be lodged somewhere to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of each house composing the legislature; for otherwise there could be no certainty, as to who were legitimately chosen members, and any intruder, or usurper, might claim a seat, and thus trample upon the rights, and privileges, and liberties of the people. Indeed, elections would become, under such circumstances, a mere mockery; and legislation the exercise of sovereignty by any self-constituted body. The only possible question on such a subject is, as to the body, in which such a power shall be lodged. If lodged in any other, than the legislative body itself, its independence, its purity, and even its existence and action may be destroyed, or put into imminent danger. No other body, but itself, can have the same motives to preserve and perpetuate these attributes; no other body can be so perpetually watchful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement, to purify and vindicate its own character, and to preserve the rights, and sustain the free choice of its constituents. Accordingly, the power has always been lodged in the legislative body by the uniform practice of England and America." - J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 831.
Just as a reminder to everyone that seems to have forgotten. We have three branches of Government. They are coequal, which means one branch can't order the other to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold and defend.

After the Civil War, large numbers of Southern elected members of Congress were refused their seats without the absurd method created by the Supreme Court. If sixty can be refused in one Congress alone without having to seat them first, then expel, one person can be refused a seat now. It is perfectly constitutional for the Senate to refuse him a seat regardless of what the Supreme Court in 1968 said, or what the current Court might have to say. The Supreme Court has no business sticking its nose in a duty that is the sole privilege of the Senate. Any method of seating Mr. Burris in the Senate against the permission of the Senate, is unconstitutional.

There is good reason to assert that all actions by the Senate, subsequent to the swearing in of the new senators, is invalid, is null, and is void, in that the full body of the Senate was not permitted to vote. They selectively omitted Senator Burris, by denying him the right to claim and exercise his office.

So far as documentation of Senator Burris goes, Sen. Reid errs when he asserts that Senate Rules "require" the signature of the Secretary of State, on election/appointment paperwork. The Rules of the Senate do NOT overthrow the U.S.Constitution or the Illinois Constitution. Sen. Reid referrs to a "Recommended Form," listed in the Rules of the Senate. The key words are "Recommended." They have no force of Law.

Additionally, both of the U.S. Senators from Alaska were sworn in and seated WITHOUT the signature of the Secretary of State of Alaska, as Alaska does NOT have such an office in its State Government.

The action of the Senate to control its own membership did not happen. There was no vote by the Senate not to seat Senator Burris. This was an action by the Majority Leader. That action is illegal.

In my view, it can be compellingly held that because Senator Burris has been prohibited from participation in the proceedings of the Senate, no action between the time that Senator Burris presented himself for seating and was denied, up and until he is seated is to be considered a valid action by the Senate.

I would think that Senator Burris should wave the right to have his voice added to all of the voice votes that occurred during this interim. However, at the moment there has been one roll call vote which has occurred during his inability to rightfully exercise his office. He would have been in the Senate Chamber and would have voted on it, had he not been denied the ability to do so. (Just as he presented himself to be seated, with the other new Senators, but was denied entry.) Whether there will be any additional role call votes between now and time that Senator Burris is seated, no one knows.

The role call should be re-opened to record Senator Burris' vote, on all role call votes that occurred, during the time that he was illegally denied the right to exercise his office. The People of the State of Illinois have the Constitutional right to have two Senators in the Senate. This has not yet happened. Consequently, since the swearing in of the other new Senators, all roll call actions by the U.S. Senate are null and void _ab initio_.