(CNSNews.com) - Saying he was “required to by law,” Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday did what he earlier said he wouldn’t do – and named a successor to President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Balgojevich appointed Roland Burris, a widely respected retired Illinois Democratic politician, to fill the seat.
“The people of Illinois are entitled to have two United States senators represent them in Washington, D.C.,” Blagojevich told reporters. “If I don’t make this appointment, then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and vote in the United States Senate.”
Blagojevic, who faces federal charges and possible impeachment over allegations that he tried to auction off the same Senate seat to the highest bidder, pointed out that Burris is a former Illinois attorney general.
“Roland Burris is no stranger to the people of our state,” the Democratic governor said. “He has had a long and distinguished career serving the people of Illinois. He will be a great United States senator.”
Burris, the first black statewide officeholder in Illinois, was elected three times as state comptroller and once as attorney general, serving from 1979 and 1992. He said he was “humbled” to accept the appointment – and has no other ties to Blagojevich.
“I have no comment on what the governor’s circumstance is,” Burris said. “And as a former attorney general of this state, I know – and I think most you all know – that in this legal process, you are innocent until proven guilty.”
Blagojevich pleaded for acceptance of Burris – a man who he said had “unquestioned integrity, extensive experience and is a wide and distinguished senior statesman in Illinois.”
“Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man,” Blagojevich added.
Members of the Senate Democratic leadership Tuesday vowed not to seat Burris.
“It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in a statement Tuesday.
Senate Democrats say they will not allow Burris to be part of the Democratic caucus – and may try to block him from being seated in the Senate itself.
“We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service, but this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat,” they added.
But Illinois Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush, who came to the microphone to defend Burris, pledged to go to the Congressional Black Caucus to demand that Burris be seated.
“Let me just remind you that there presently is no African-American in the U.S. Senate,” Rush said, invoking a racially charged metaphor.
“I would ask you not to hang or lynch your appointee in (the) attempt to lynch the appointor,” Rush said. “Separate, if you will the appointee from the appointor.”
“Roland Burris stands head and shoulders above most elected officials in this nation,” said Rush, vowing he would do “whatever it may take” to get Senate Democrats to reverse their decision.
Senate's Ability to Block Appointment 'Not Clear'
Liberty University Law School Dean Mathew Staver, a constitutional attorney, said Senate Democrats have every right to prohibit a senator from membership in their caucus or expel a member from the Senate itself – but it’s not clear whether the Senate could refuse to accept Burris if he presents himself to be seated in January when the new Congress convenes.
“It is not at all clear what would happen,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
On the surface, the constitutional question of determining Senate membership would seem to belong to the Senate itself.
Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution says: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . .” Additionally, the Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
“There’s nothing constitutionally that would require them to accept the appointment,” Staver said. “But if they would say no and not seat him, a lawsuit would likely be filed, and it would probably work its way up to the United States Supreme Court -- as did the case of Adam Clayton Powell.”
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives had no authority to exclude Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.), who had been accused of ethics violations but had been re-elected to his congressional seat.
Staver said the Court initially believed that it did not have the constitutional authority to intervene in the case – but then-Chief Justice Earl Warren insisted it did.
“They ultimately decided that they did, and held that Congress only had the right to decide if a prospective member was of legal age – that kind of thing,” he added.
A legal challenge along these lines could trigger a constitutional crisis, in today’s environment, Staver said.
On Dec. 9, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald ordered Blagojevich and his chief-of-staff, John Harris, to be arrested on charges that they conspired to try to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Fitzgerald on Monday asked a court to release recordings of federal wiretaps of Blagojevich to Illinois lawmakers who are currently considering impeachment proceedings.