Harry Reid v. The Stupidity of the WSJ.

Harry 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.

Never thought I would ever say this in my life, but "Go Harry Reid and all you Democrat up in the Senate."

Harry Reid v. the Constitution
If Roland Burris isn't fit for the Senate, how is Chris Dodd?

An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. After the Blagojevich tapes were made public, Democrats who run the state legislature said they'd pass a law to require a special election for the Senate. But their passion for that option ebbed when it became clear that a Republican could win, especially amid this Democratic fiasco. When the legislature failed to act, Mr. Blagojevich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law.
The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance.
While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.
Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.
Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years.