Seuss said:

> It really is ceremonial.

And it really is a rule of the US Senate...  You will not be recognized as a US Senator without proper credentials, and those credentials include the signature of the State Governor and the State Secretary; ceremonial or not.  Until the US Senate changes the rule, makes an exception to the rule, or until the US Supreme Court decides that the rule is unconstitutional, or until the Illinois Secretary of State signs the silly paper, Burris cannot be seated as a US Senator.

---

Quote:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/state-court-rebuffs-burris-on-senate-signature.html

But Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier said White's signature was not needed for Burris to be seated in the Senate.

"We note ... that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th Amendment must be signed and sealed by the state's secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution. Under these circumstances, the Senate's actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the secretary of state. The only issue before us is whether the secretary of state, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not."

---

Madtowntripper said:

The Illinois Senate will begin impeachment proceedings next week.

---

xFrockx said:

"Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution."

I like this part, its like the court is saying "Oh no you didn't!"

---

Ferris said:

Ya, that's what I was talking about.  Credentials were important back then.

---

Ferris said:

I don't think that this man was part of the scandal at all, nor do I see any reason why he would be a bad pick for this temporary role.   

---

Quote:

The fact is, if this mess with Burris had been made public back on February 5 when the Illinois senator submitted his “corrected” affadavit to the Democratic Majority Leader, there is a pretty good chance that the Illinois senator would not have been able to vote on the stimulus bill in the senate on the 13th.

Why? Because pressure would have been building – as it is now – for the “lying little sneak” to resign his seat. It seems surreal but Roland Burris has now changed his story about contacts with Governor Blagojevich’s henchmen about the senate seat at least 4 times – twice yesterday alone. If he had been forced to resign in a similar time period that is shaping up now, there would have been no 60th vote on the stimulus bill in the senate, no cloture, and the bill would have been sent back to conference.

So which Democrats knew of this affidavit and why wasn’t it made public immediately? Burris says he sent the affidavit to the chairman of the impeachment committee who then promptly sat on it until the Chicago Sun Times got wind of the story at which point Burris himself gave it to the newspaper. The committee chairman was Barbara Flynn Currie, House Majority Leader.

Barbara Flynn Currie has represented the 25th Congressional district in the Illinois House since 1979. That district includes Hyde Park – former home for many years of President Barack Obama.

Just sayin’.

---