A new twist has been added to the Roland Burris saga as our "illustrious" junior Illinois U.S. Senator conveeeeniently forgot to mention that he was hit up by Blago's brother for a $10,000 campaign donation. Of course, Burris wouldn't be a U.S. Senator if Democrats in Illinois, the U.S. Senate, and the White House hadn't of caved on getting Burris installed by the corrupt and impeached former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. The price to be paid by the American people will be in the trillions of dollars.
The cowardice, a harsh yet appropriate assessment, on display from Illinois Democrats and Democrats in the U.S. Senate, along with that of President Obama, is epic if you think about it. Illinois Democrats in the General Assembly refused to change the law regarding replacing a resigned U.S. Senator from Illinois. As will be mentioned later on, Democrats in the U.S. Senate backed down in their refusal to seat Burris. As a result, Burris voted for Porkulus twice: first for the original Senate "compromise", and then for the conference report this past Friday. The second vote really hurt since had Burris not been there, the Senate would not have had the minimum 60 votes needed to pass.
Democrats had no intention of risking the loss of a U.S. Senate seat in a special election considering how angry the people of Illinois had become since the Blagojevich scandal first broke. Illinois Democrats cowardly refused to allow the people to choose the next U.S. Senator from Illinois, something Blagojevich said he supported, instead concentrating on the impeachment and getting snookered by Blagojevich into appointing what is now an increasingly tainted Roland Burris. Instead of sticking to his guns, Reid ran away from his own demands, as did Senate Democrats and President Obama.
Obama got his Porkulus through a fraudulent and perjured vote by U.S. "Senator" who has no right to be there. And while scorn and ridicule are rightly heaped on Republicans Collins, Snowe, and Specter for voting for it as well, we have Democratic cowardice to thank for America's financial subjugation for the next few generations.
RedState's own Pejman Yousefzadeh believes it's time to open up something that doesn't seem to have been read very often:
It is time to consult the wording of Art. I, Sec. 5 of the United States Constitution, and all precedents that attach thereto. By all rights, Roland Burris’s tenure in the United States Senate should not last for long.
And RedState's Moe Lane offers up a thank you to someone who probably won't say "you're welcome":
By the way: Harry Reid? Yeah, this is why people do that entire “stick to your guns” thing. Because right now the only thing you’ve done by seating this guy is do our 2010 campaign ads for us. Whether or not Burris lasts that long.
Ed Morrissey expands on what Moe Lane referred to as perjury:
There is no possibility that Burris simply “forgot” about such a demand. In the first place, that’s exactly what the House was investigating, a pay-for-play arrangement for the open Senate seat. In fact, one has to question why Burris himself didn’t report such a blatantly corrupt demand to state or federal authorities. He never paid the money, but the demand itself is explicitly illegal, and as a state lawmaker Burris had a higher responsibility than most to report the attempt.
This puts the onus back on Harry Reid and the Senate. Burris has arguably committed perjury and failed to report corruption. Will they wait until he gets charged in the case, or act to remove him and allow new Governor Pat Quinn to appoint someone much less problematic to replace him? If Reid does nothing and allows Burris to occupy the seat, Republicans will have a brand-new case to add to the Democratic “culture of corruption” that now includes William Jefferson, Chris Dodd, and Charlie Rangel for the midterm elections.
And Jim Hoft tells us, via the AP, that Republican Illinois House members want an outside investigation because they don't trust Illinois Democrats. I don't even trust national Democrats. Would you?
On a side note, fellow Illinoisan Warner Todd Huston, whose posts here on RedState and his other blogs are great reads, had stated that conservatives and Republicans are wrong in demanding the Illinois General Assembly pass a change to Illinois law when it comes to filling a vacant U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, to have it done through a special election instead of how it is currently done, by gubenatorial appointment. In a post on my regular blog, I've analyzed that there is nothing in the Illinois Constitution (cited by Huston) that says a constitutional Amendment needs to be passed prior to the law being changed (Illinois voters decided during the 2008 election against holding a Constitutional Convention to amend the Illinois Constitution). The dreadful 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has what I consider a loophole allowing legislatures to keep a governor from appointing replacement Senators. However, I'm not a lawyer, nor any kind of expert on the U.S. or Illinois Constitutions; my opinions are my own based on what I've read and found. Huston may very well be correct in his assessment, although I haven't seen any cases corroborating his arguments. If I am wrong, I will update this and other posts accordingly.