Do Their Oaths Mean Nothing To Them...???

On May 5, 1789, the Senate passed its first bill - the Oath Act. That first oath, for members and civil servants, was very simple: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

No doubt, if I were so inclined, I could wholly devote this blog to illuminating instances where Senators (and House Members, Presidents, Supreme Court Justices) have by their actions made a mockery of this simple oath - this simple yet in my mind sacred concept that the Constitution of the United States as written, ratified, and occasionally legally amended via Constitutional mechanism, is and must be the Supreme Law of the Land.

But no; I am not so inclined. Usually Right was begun as a "general" blog and will remain so. That said, the blatantly unconstitutional path Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatens to tread - supposedly in Our name, the name of The People - serves as a near perfect example of an out of control politician with either (or perhaps both!) no understanding of the Constitution or no respect for it.

As readers are no doubt aware, Sen. Reid believes that he and a majority of the Senate (not even two thirds... just a simple majority) have the power to bar a legally elected or appointed Senator who was elected/appointed by the people/governor of his state from taking the oath of office and assuming his seat. As Reid said yesterday on Meet the Press, "We determine who sits in the Senate, and the House determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to. This goes back for generations."

Wrong, Mr. Reid!

Absolutely...

Fundamentally...

WRONG, MR. REID!

Click on the above provided link and read the germane portion of the exchange between Mr. Gregory, host of Meet the Press, and Sen. Harry Reid, who first came to Washington as a Member of the House - sworn in January 3, 1983. As you'll note, after 35 years in Washington, 35 years as a Congressman and Senator, Mr. Reid (by the way... did I mention Reid is an attorney?) showed himself to be far less familiar with the U.S. Constitution, American history, and simple logic than mere journalist David Gregory.

As Gregory correctly points out, Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich is still... err... Governor of Illinois. He may yet resign. He may yet be impeached. He may yet be removed from office. HOWEVER... until he is... like it or not... Rod Blagojevich is still Governor of Illinois and literally every reference to his official powers I could find notes that Illinois law gives the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy.

No ifs...

No ands...

No buts...

Furthermore, the Burris appointment has been made. Regardless of what happens to Governor Blagojevich, the appointment has been made. It was a legal appointment and bottom line... like it or not... that is the bottom line!

(Think the Clinton Pardons. Even if it could be proven that President Clinton basically sold pardons either for direct or indirect financial and/or political benefit, those pardons were Constitutional. Period. End of story.)

Contrary to Senator Reid's rantings, ravings, ramblings, and threats, the only Constitutionally valid justification for refusing to swear in and seat the duly appointed Senator-Elect Roland Burris would be if it were to be found that Burris appointment did not meet the requirements of Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution that Burris be at least 30 years of age, a U.S. citizen for the past 9 years or more, and upon appointment a resident of Illinois. Again... period... end of story.

As already mention, Harry Reid is an attorney. Not only did he attend law school, graduate, take and pass the bar exam, practice law, but on top of that Reid has made his living as either an elected or appointed state or federal official for the better part of 40 years, having first been elected to the Nevada State Assembly in 1967. Sen. Reid knows what the law is. Sen. Reid knows what the Constitution says. Sen. Reid simply doesn't care.

On December 10, Reid and 49 of his Democratic Senatorial colleagues claimed in a letter to Governor Blagojevich that, "Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article 1, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated."

WHAT AUTHORITY...?!?! Is the following the text the august Senators refer to?

Article 1, Section 5: Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. 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.

Funny... Reid and his cronies fail to note what came prior to as well as after this particular section of the Constitution, namely:

Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states... When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years... When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Think about it, folks... if Article 1, Section 2 actually meant - means - what Reid and his fellow travelers claim it does, why would either House ever change Party hands? I mean... think about it... if a mere majority of Members of either House was all it took not to accept a newly elected member into the Body, why would a Republican/Democrat Senate or House ever ALLOW an elected Democrat/Republican to take his seat? Heck... all the Constitution requires in order for the Senate and House to legally function is a quorum of a simple majority of each Body's membership - 51 Republicans or Democrats in the Senate would do it; 218 Republicans and Democrats in the House!

Another question... a question of logic. Returning to the actual text of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5 in this case, note...

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. 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.

Again... as previously noted... where the text speaks of "elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members" this clearly refers to the Constitutional requirements for said office themselves... age, citizenship, residence...

No. What I want you to focus on is the latter text... "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."

Not rocket science, folks. Pretty clear. Explicit in fact! The Constitution is referring to SITTING Members and in order to EXPEL a Member TWO THIRDS of the Body's membership must concur.

Think about it... if the Founders clearly required the bar to be two thirds of the House's Membership or respectively two thirds of the Senate's Membership in concurrence to expel a sitting Congressman or Senator, wouldn't the same logic apply if they had meant either Body to have the ability to refuse to seat duly elected/appointed Members-Elect... wouldn't the Founders have been 1) explicit in giving out this power; and 2) required the same two thirds concurrence for "refusal to seat" as for expulsion?

My fellow Americans... Reid, Durbin, Obama and the rest of the Democrats who signed the above cited letter claiming the Constitution as their authority to refuse to seat Senator-Elect Burris know full well that they have no such authority and in fact that by falsely claiming such authority the weaken the very ideal of an American Constitutional Government ruled by laws, not men. Their actions should appall and disgust all of us.

It does not matter what sort of man Governor Rod Blagojevich is. As of now, more importantly, as of the time of his legitimate, constitutional appointment of Senator-Elect Burris, Governor Blagojevich was the man legally entitled to make said appointment. Period. If... for whatever reason... AFTER Senator-Elect Burris is sworn in and becomes Senator Burris... well at that point Reid and the Democrats will have every Constitutional right to attempt to win two thirds Senate concurrence to expel him. That is a legal and moral decision I leave up to them. As a matter of law, such is their right, such is up to them. As a matter of moral/ethical judgement... that too I leave to the Members of the Senate themselves.

Readers. Don't get caught up in emotion. Reid and his cronies have no legal leg to stand upon. Note: I haven't even bothered to cite Powell v. McCormack! Beyond the fact that the High Court agreed with... err... the Constitution... back in 1969... even if they hadn't - even if this matter had never come up before the Court before - as I've demonstrated, the Constitution itself is clear and always has been clear on the matter in question.

To end... to paraphrase..

GOD SAVE THIS HONORABLE NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION FROM WHICH OUR LIBERTIES FLOW!