Discuss Erwin Chemerinsky's Jan. 6 Op-Ed article.

I wonder if Erwin Chemerinsky would blithely hand over his money to Bernie Madoff today to invest in a Bernie Madoff fund. I doubt it. Neither Blagojevich nor Madoff has been convicted. But neither man has any credibility any more when it comes to doing their job. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is simply refusing to sanction the actions of a highly corrupt politician. In a system of checks and balances, White has checked the governor in an attempt to protect the citizens of this state.

Anne from Chicago @ 6:52 PM PST, Jan 7, 2009

I agree with Chemerinsky's analysis completely and have but one complaint. Is it not possible for left wingers to write anything, about any subject, without including irrelevant and gratuitous pokes at the Bush administration?

BobDoyle @ 1:21 PM PST, Jan 7, 2009

miss you, chem

duke 3L @ 10:21 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

Ummm...Erwin I think there is a pretty wide chasm between "vesting in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by a majority vote" and limiting Congress to checking the guy's drivers license. I think this is a case of 1st impression since fraud taints the selection. Would congress be required to admit a Blagojevich nominee if Blagojevich had actually succeeded in selling the seat? ps I miss your barbri lectures, you are the best con law lecturer!

Mahbod @ 9:15 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

The denial is not twisting the Constitution, it is merely twisting the above cited Supreme Court precedent. The language of Article 1 Section 5 is clear: the Senate has a right to exclude members it deems unfit. The Senate should be able to exercise the plain language rights granted to it by the Constitution. Putting judicial interpretation above the plain language of the Constitution is putting the cart before the horse.

Ben W @ 8:47 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

How does the fact that the Illinois Secretary of State not signing off on Burress fit into the picture. It seems like there is a legal hurdle Burress needs to overcome on the state level before it ever got to the federal level.

Sam @ 7:51 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

"For the last eight years, the Bush administration has ignored or twisted the Constitution to serve what it believed were higher ends." Why don't you tell us how you really feel about the Bush administration.

Rob F @ 6:48 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

What about the fact that Illinois law requires two signatures on an appointment -- the Governor, and the Illinois Secretary of State -- and Burris only has one? The Illinois Secretary of State has refused to sign the appointment. The legal test is not merely whether he meets the qualifications demanded by the Federal government, but also whether he meets the qualifications demanded by Illinois. He clearly doesn't.

Skeptical @ 6:11 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

Tribe's argument is basically a "public-policy" one ... the kind law students use in exams when they don't have either the facts or the law behind them. Chemerinsky has the better argument. We've too long tolerated relativism in constitutional law. If that's what we want we should abandon the Common Law and adopt codification and the Civil Law. Do I hear an echo from the ghost of David Dudley Field?

Punklich @ 5:11 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

I dont agree with the appointment.I don't know how to argue with the logic.It does seem that rational conclusion,keep him out, opens the door to obvious misuse. What about the validity of the constitution. I say let him in to uphold the law, then let the Senate follow due process and kick him out. That would satisfy all conditions, it seems.

mbspringer @ 2:04 AM PST, Jan 7, 2009

Next