What's The Matter With Harry?

Harry Reid continues to say the Senate will not seat anybody appointed by Illinois Rod Blagojevich. But it is not that simple. But I'm not sure the Reid and Senate could refuse to seat Burris. The Consitution gives the Senate the sole power as "Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members." Because this is an appointment and not an election, the first two parts do not apply - only Qualifications. And the Adam Clayton Powell case of 1969 seems to kill that idea. There the Supreme court said that the "Qualifications" mentioned in the Constitution are ONLY those qualifications found in the Consitution, such as age, citizenry, residency, etc. I guess the new Senator could take the oath and then be expelled by a 2/3 vote. The problem with all this is that Burris does not appear to have any taint of corruption. What reason would anyone have to say Burriss should not sit absent proof of his own corrupt activities?

Some argue that "qualifications" can include a judgment of whether the appointment was legal and valid. But the examples in the LA Times article to which I link regard elections, for which the Constituion give final judgment to the Senate. The appointment of Burris is not an election.

They Were Against The Troops Before They Were For Them

Just before adopting the amendment discussed below, the Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Senator Boxer. It noted attacks on Senator Max Cleland, Senator John Kerry, and General Petraeus, and then said:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Forty-seven senators voted against the amendment (46 Republicans and Russ Feingold(!?)). I guess they didn't like supporting all the troops and veterans, only those who were criticized by a liberal organization exercising its constitutional right to free speech.

Senate Repudiation of MoveOn.Org

I know I said that I would have nothing more to say regarding the MoveOn.org ad regarding General Petraeus, but I lied. Yesterday, the Senate amended the Defense Appropriations Act to state:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

Does anyone else feel a tad uncomfortable with a branch of the Federal Government officially and specifically repudiating the contents of citizens' free speech? I have no problem with individual Senators criticizing MoveOn.org's ad, but with the above amendment, the Congress (if passed by the House) has stated that it is the official policy of the Government that one specific excercise of free speech is off limits. Is it a violation of the First Amendment? I don't think so. But it does make me cringe a bit.