Forget what you hear on television; those idiots never get the story right (well, not completely right).

Governor Blagojevich has appointed Roland Burris to fill the empty Senate seat. He has the absolute right to do so. Harry Reid says he won't seat Burris, but he doesn't have that right.

In the late 1960s, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was prevented by the House from taking his seat, because he was under suspicion of having committed crimes. He sued, and the Supreme Court ruled in Powell v. McCormack that the House overstepped its authority.

It appears that the Supreme Court ruled explicity that someone duly elected to Congress must be seated. In this case, Burris isn't elected, but is duly appointed under Amendment XVII and Illinois state law, so he must be seated.

But...

The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) states that either House of Congress may, "with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." So it seems that if Harry Reid can get 2/3 of the Senate to vote to expel Burris, that would end Burris's tenure.

But (there's always more) ...

The same section begins with, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." This was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Powell case very narrowly -- the judgment on qualifications cannot extend beyond the qualifications outlined in Art. I, Sec. 3, which states, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." As long as Burris meets those qualifications (and he does), he is qualified, and the Senate cannot overturn that.

In addition, the same clause in Art. I, Sec. 5 that allows for expulsion states in full, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." It seems to me that a case could be made that expulsion can only be done for "disorderly Behaviour" of a member. In the case of a Senator who is convicted of a crime, the conviction could be considered "disorderly Behaviour," and the Senator can be expelled.

But Burris has done nothing that could be considered "disorderly Behaviour," so a case could be made that the Senate does not have the legal authority to expel him. The idea here is that expulsion should not be made for light or spurious reasons, or because a bunch of colleagues don't like a member.

Incidentally, a similar argument was made during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Former Senator Dale Bumpers made the case that the charges against President Clinton were not impeachable offenses. Specifically, he said, "Now this is one of the most important points of this entire presentation: the term -- first of all -- 'treason and bribery,' nobody quarrels with that, and we're not debating treason and bribery here in this chamber. We're talking about 'other high crimes and misdemeanors' ... And where did 'high crimes and misdemeanors' come from? It came from the English law, and they found it in an English law under a category which said, 'distinctly political offenses against the state.'"

Since Clinton was not charged with anything that could be interpreted as a "distinctly political offense against the state," he should not be convicted. The Senate (enough of them, anyway) agreed.

Similarly, since Burris has done nothing that constitutes "disorderly Behaviour," he should not be expelled -- unless someone can show a connection between Burris and any crimes Governor Blagojevich may have committed. At that point, expulsion becomes easy.

Meanwhile...

It occurs to me to ask what could have been done to avoid this situation, while ensuring that the people of Illinois get their full representation in the Senate. The answer, it seems to me, is obvious, at least in hindsight.

Harry Reid should have turned to his Majority Wimp (oh, there I did it again -- I meant "Majority Whip") Dick Durbin, who just happens to be the senior Senator from Illinois. He should have said, "Dick, tell Governor Blagojevich that you are going to put together a short list of potential appointees, and if he selects one of them we will accept that." That way, the selection process is taken away from someone under extreme suspicion, but Illinois gets a second Senator.

It's just possible that Durbin might have but Burris on the list. Something to consider.