As posted by Beth Shaw yesterday, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich appointed the former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to finish up President Elect, Barack Obama’s Senate term. Needless to say this isn’t sitting well with a lot of folks in the Democrat Party.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the Burris appointment, says he won’t, and Democrat leader Harry Reid said “Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.? Many more Democrats have chimed in on the issue, and most of them have given Burris two thumbs down. Case closed, right? Well, not so fast.

The question at hand is not whether the Dems want to seat Burris, but rather can the Senate refuse to seat a Senator appointed by Governor Blagojevich?

Harry Reid, and others, have been citing Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which says (in part) that each house of the Congress shall judge the qualifications of its members, but the problem for Reid, and others, is that Burris meets all the Constitutional qualifications to hold the position, and was appointed by the sitting Governor of Illinois.

There is a good article at the CBS Political Hotsheet that points out the following 2 points:

1) It’s also clear, based on a Supreme Court case involving Julian Bond, that a state legislature could not refuse to seat an elected state Senator because the majority of his colleagues found Bond’s views on the Vietnam War abhorrent.

2) …the Senate may well have more Constitutional power to expel a Senator than to refuse to seat one. But that raises the dicey political question: would the Senate really want to expel a qualified, experienced political veteran who has never been tainted with any scandal?

So I guess we’ll watch this play out over the next few days or weeks to see what happens, but I’m sure it will be interesting to watch as the situation unfolds.