BREAKING: IL SC Rules on Burris Petition…NO SoS Signature Required! heh…

Update 3: 3:00pm EST: H/T to jbindc at TL, who notes this piece of the ruling, which to us at MiM says it all:

“We note…that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution. Under these circumstances, the Senate’s actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the Secretary of State. The only issue before us is whether the Secretary of State, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not.”

Update 2: Now Fox reporting that Senate Dem aide on Capitol Hill is STILL saying Burris will NOT be seated without that signature, despite the state SC ruling…

Oh come on already!! The SoS DID ENTER the appointment into the register as the Burris papers note in our original report on this topic, linky below..therefore the signature is not necessary, it IS RECORDED..this is what IL SC is saying as well…now Capitol Hill Senate Dem ‘aides’ are saying this makes it MORE difficult to seat Burris? and yet at the same time Reid WANTS to seat Franken? oh come on!

Stop digging a hole and seat the guy! I mean it is a HARDSHIP for this guy to have to keep paying legal fees to get seated at this point…

Update: Dick Durbin to hold news conference in 2 hours….

COURT RULING here

DEVELOPING: FOX reports…

IL SC rules that the signature of the SoS of IL, Jesse White, is NOT required for Burris to be seated.

No further action is required by the Illinois SoS or any other official to make the appointment of Roland Burris to the IL Seat in the Senate valid….

USA Today has it up, finally:

Because the Secretary of State had no duty under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act to sign and affix the state seal to the document issued by the Governor appointing Roland Burris to the United States Senate, Petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those Acts. Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary’s sole responsibility was to register the appointment, which he did. No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law. Moreover, to the extent that additional proof of the validity of the appointment is necessary, Illinois law provides a mechanism for obtaining it without the need for judicial intervention. For the foregoing reasons, petitioners’ request for issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied. Mandate to issue forthwith.

B/C SoS has NO DUTY under SoS Acts, no signature is required

IL Constitution 305.5, Ministerial Duty states SoS is required to certify, thus it is not White’s call…and his signature is NOT required, which is IIRC what White and AG Madigan’s briefs both said…..

developing….

A-HA!! That was MiM’s legal opinion as well, heh…

yes the ACT took place when Blago signed and the SoS is not necessary…

See our previous posts here and here and here and here and here

Background here from AP

and FOX is reporting that Reid is trying to seat Franken without the legal wrangling being completed in MIN which DOES have a law REQUIRING that the SoS NOT certify until ALL legal actions are done..Reid is on the wrong side of BOTH of these calls…

one more time..WHADDA MAROON!!!

harry-reid-incompetence

January 9, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Politics.

2 Comments

  1. Tad Armstrong replied:

    The saga (and absolute childish antics by Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and others) continues.

    The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled and I stand corrected on a technical, but irrelevant, point. Because they have ruled that the Blago appointment is not a “commission,” Jesse White, who does indeed have a duty to countersign “commissions” issued by the executive, is not required to sign the Burris appointment. So be it and accepted.

    But, the Court also ruled that (1) a signature on the appointment is not required for Burris to take his rightful seat and (2) White has, according to his duty, registered the appointment. After all, as correctly stated by the Illinois Supreme Court, “the only purpose a signature and seal could possibly serve in this case is an evidentiary one. It would confirm that the appointment had, in fact, been made. At this point, however, there is no question at all that the Governor did, in fact, make the appointment.”

    If Harry Reid and Dick Durbin don’t believe what every other human on the planet knows is true, all they need do, as Justice Karmeier says, is request a certified copy and it should be forthcoming because the Secretary of State does have that duty.

    One final point. Justice Karmeier notes that “no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.”

    I would add that, in my opinion, there cannot possibly be any such explanation. The United States Constitution does not require the signature of Jesse White and all actual “requirements” of the Constitution have been fulfilled by Illinois, Governor Blagojevich and Senator Roland Burris.

    It is outrageous that anyone in Washington, D.C., would continue to block this appointment. I call upon our sitting Senator Durbin to get out of the way, stop violating the U.S. Constitution and cease blocking our right to representation by two senators. It is disgusting to think that our sitting Senator, who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, is illegally blocking this valid appointment. Doesn’t he know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, to be honored above any so-called traditions?

    Tad Armstrong
    January 9, 2009

    Like

    • ginaswo replied:

      Fabulous breakdown and assessment of the arguments, thank you!!!

      Like

%d bloggers like this: