Nancy Erikson rejects Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
January 5, 2009 1:51pm CST
The secretary of Senate rejected Burris' appoitment to senate today. why? Well she said it was because his certificate of appointment did not have all the appropriate signatures on it. By law the secretary of state AND the governor must sign the certificate to make it valid. But only the governor's signature was on it.
Jesse White the secretary of State of Ill. is refusing to sign it due to the current scandel with the governor concerning the appointment of the position (or rather his trying to sell the position to the highest bidder). White feels someone else should have made the appointment and NOT the governor.
Burris still plans on showing up at the chamber doors tomorrow but he did say he was exspecting to be denied entry.
Burris went on to say he is shocked by all the scandel his appointment is causing.
What do you think? I really do not see how Burris is shocked by the scandel. Comparing that the governor is in a big scandel over trying to sell the position, any appointment he made was going to cause a BIG out cry.
Should be allowed into the Senate? Should someone else make the appointment?
1 person likes this
8 responses
@celticrogue (450)
• United States
5 Jan 09
In my opinion, everyone in the USA is innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, Illinois law says that the Governor is to appoint a person to fulfil a vacancy in the state's Congressional officials. He's done that. And there is a lot of baggage surrounding the whole issue. I think that Burris should be allowed to be seated in the Senate. Refusal to sign the certificate by the secretary of state is an obvious political stance (just like the 'selling' attempt of the governor) that only adds more baggage.
Let Burris be seated. Allow the investigation to be completed. If all involved are found guilty (including the possibility that Burris campaigned for the seat and may have agreed to provide compensation to the governor), then those found guilty should be removed from office.
Isn't this what due process of law is about? Follow your rules that has been laid out, irregardless of personal, political views and stances, let the chips fall where they will, then use those same laws to remove the guilty from office.
1 person likes this
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
6 Jan 09
It's my understanding that Burris is more qualified for the Senate than Obama is for President. Because of the claims against the governor of Illinois, I can understand why the Senate is leery seating Burris. However, if everything is on the up and up, I don't see how they can deny him the seat.
@Pitgull (1522)
• United States
6 Jan 09
Why must you attack Obama when responding to this discussion? He will be your President if you live in America. His background, education, and taking his Ivy League education to better Chicago's streets? That, to me, sounds like a true American Hero.
I do agree with your position about Burris, there should be some way to prevent this from being tied up in the Judicial system...don't we have better things to worry about?
Explain the issue with Burris or let him have his seat. If he is not guilty of anything, why should he be denied his seat? Aren't we innocent until proven guilty?
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I'm sorry you felt I was attacking Obama. That was not my intention. I was merely stating a fact. My point was that if Obama is qualified for President with so little experience, certainly Burris is qualified to be a Senator.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
5 Jan 09
I beleive that the Governor has the right to appoint a person tho the vacant Senate seat not the Majority leader. Who does Senator Reid think he is??? The Governor has not been charged with a crime, nor has he been convicted of a crime but rather a US Attorney told the press that this man was guilty and we are to beleive it. Remember this is the same US Attorney who was told to find the person who leaked a CIA "agents" name and to bring them to trial. IN that case the US Attorney had a person admit that he was the one but this US Attorney went on to convict a third person who story was not the same as some selected reporters, while other reporters could not remember the same exact information but were never charged with lying to a Grand Jury.
Harry Reid needs to clean his house and his party and not worry about weather a seal is on a document that the person is required by law to affix.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
5 Jan 09
I guess Senator Reid is on this one too huh? The article I read was just talking about the fact that sense the secretary of state did not sign it that it is not valid.
I also agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty. But also considering what is going on.....in the interest of what is best of the state...the governor should have handed the decision over to someone else. That way whoever got appointed would not have this gray cloud over him and so that hte whole thing went smoother.
@cripfemme (7698)
• United States
6 Jan 09
If his form didn't have all the signatures, he can't be appointed. Those are just the rules. I would be hestitant of anyone the governor appointed. Good foe the Secretary of State, in my opinion!
@Pitgull (1522)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I agree with your position about the signatures, his form was incomplete. However, given the extenuating circumstances of this appointment, I believe there are some considerations that must be taken into account. It appears the secretary does not want to sign because the Governor made the appointment, that is the only reason.
Is it because he is the Governor, or because of the current scandal surrounding the Governor, that is something else to think of....
If it is supported by others, that is one thing, but if there is issue with the candidate that should be taken into consideration...
If only the appointment came from somewhere else...
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
5 Jan 09
No, he should not be allowed in the senate. This appointment is tainted by the governor's current scandal. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Burris and from everything I've read about him he appears to be a decent and honest guy. However, we can't just pick and choose who will and won't be able to skate by after being appointed by Blagojevich. I think the governor is an a$$ and actually hurt Burris by putting him in this situation. Burris has said he would go to the senate, but that he would not make a scene if he is not allowed entry. If I were him, I'd probably show up too knowing I wouldn't be allowed in, just because that's the job he was appointed to do.
@Pitgull (1522)
• United States
6 Jan 09
Maybe that was part of the Governor's goal. Maybe he is a bad guy, and for a last hurrah! Decided, throw him out into the wolves and share the attention?
Who knows...
I would show up, and I know it would be bad. It would be very bad. Mostly cussing, but I'd freak out.
He shouldn't be held accountable for negative actions of another if he has not done the same...although, I can understand being wary about a Governor's appointment, period.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I don't know if the Governor did what they're accusing him of doing or not. I've never seen any proof of it, just hearsay. And they are taking a long time to prosecute him. Is Illinois going to remain in limbo until someone can figure out what to do? The Governor hasn't been impeached yet has he? I would think that until he is impeached or prosecuted his choice should be accepted.
@Pitgull (1522)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I think it is just a way to tie him up in court and make him campaign for re-election. Probably because of disapproval with the governmental environment it would create.
It seems that the issue is not with Burris; however, it has more to do with the Governor...which I believe is wrong. If someone can provide information as to why Burris was a poor choice, that is one thing. But if they only have an issue with the person who selected him, that is something else entirely.
Burris should have the support of other people and I believe if any reasonable parties come forward about their acceptance and approval, I do not see why he should be denied. This is America.
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I don't think there's much the senate can do, even though Blago is tainted I still think any appointments he makes are legal, aren't they? In Illinois they should just hurry up and impeach the governor or something, maybe that would help. I heard Blago's replacement would probably have appointed Burris, so this should be interesting to watch, especially tomorrow.
