Nevadans Embarrassed Again

OK, I have to vent today as I just can't pass on this political comment.

Once again the good people of the great state of Nevada have been embarrassed by Senator Harry Reid.

The sad fact is that in two years the good people of the great state of Nevada will once again elect Harry because the people seem to think with the power of senate majority leader he looks out for our state.

Unfortunately, that simply is not the truth.

Fact is a lot of those misguided souls think that Harry has kept Yucca Mountain from accepting nuclear waste.

Harry had the power, but Yucca is still under construction, and if that changes it will be because of President-elect Obama, not Senator Harry Reid.

They also think the bridge across the Colorado river to bypass Hoover dam was all about the people of the State of Nevada.

Reid earmarked a spending bill to provide for building a bridge between Nevada and Arizona. Reid called funding for construction of a bridge over the Colorado River, among other projects, 'incredibly good news for Nevada' in a news release after passage of the 2005 transportation bill - a bill that would make land he owned more valuable.

He owned 160 acres of land several miles from the proposed bridge site in Arizona. The bridge could add value to his real estate investment.

However let me discuss Harry's latest gaff.

But before I discuss his latest foot-in-mouth statement, let me give you a reminder of a few things that come to mind when I hear Harry's name.

Reid made headlines in May 2005 when he said of George W. Bush, "The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."

Reid later apologized for these comments.

Reid also called Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and referred to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a "political hack."

Reid opposed a Constitutional amendment to make English the national language of the United States, calling the proposal "racist."

OK, now that I have you warmed up, his latest donation to making the good folks in Nevada embarrassed is when he stated matter-of-factly that Roland Burris will not be seated as a senator.

He has since softened that statement because someone whispered in his ear that he could not stop it.

It sure is funny how Harry talks about the constitution when using it in discussions about Republicans, but in this case Burris is a Democrat and Harry talks like there is something in the constitution that allows him to keep Burris from being seated.

Harry supposedly has a law degree, has been in the Senate since 1986, was a minority leader and now a majority leader, but he still does not understand the Constitution of the United States.

Maybe if Harry had ever stayed at a Holiday Inn Express he would be aware of the fact that Burris meets the qualifications to be seated as a senator.

No matter how you philosophically interpret it, one thing almost all of us, except Harry, can agree on is that the highest law governing this nation is the Constitution.

Harry Reid is pushing for a decision that is as unconstitutional.

You would think the Senator from Nevada who has a law degree and once, rumor has it, actually practiced law, would be aware of a previous legal test of the constitution 40 years ago in Powell v. McCormack.

Powell v. McCormack was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1969. It answered the question of whether Congress can exclude from serving in Congress a person who has been elected and who meets the requirements of the United States Constitution for serving in Congress.

Background of the case: Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., a senior member of the United States House of Representatives, was embroiled in scandal, specifically around allegations that he had refused to pay a judgment ordered by a New York court, misappropriated congressional travel funds, and illegally paid his wife a congressional staff salary for work she had not done.

Nevertheless, Powell was reelected in the 1966 election. In January 1967, the 90th Congress convened, Speaker of the House John William McCormack asked Representative Powell to abstain from taking the oath of office. Then the House passed H.Res. 1, which stripped Powell of his House Committee chairmanship, excluded him from taking his seat, and created a select committee to investigate Powell's misdeeds. After the select committee conducted its investigation and hearings, in March 1967, the House passed H.Res. 278 by a vote of 307 to 116, which again excluded Powell from Congress and also censured him, fined him $40,000, took away his seniority, and declared his seat vacant.

Powell, along with 13 of his constituents, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, naming McCormack and five other members as defendants. He also named the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Doorkeeper. Most of these parties were named in an effort to get injunctions barring the enforcement of H.Res.278:

To prevent the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath of office
To prevent the Clerk from "refusing to perform the duties due a Representative"
To prevent the Sergeant at Arms from withholding Powell's salary
To prevent the Doorkeeper from barring Powell from Congressional chambers


The suit claimed that excluding Powell amounted to an expulsion but that an expulsion would not have garnered the necessary two-thirds vote.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. An appellate court overturned the ruling, stating that the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction but dismissed the case nonetheless for a lack of justifiability.

While the suit was making its way through the court system, Powell was re-elected in the 1968 election, and was ultimately re-seated in the 91st Congress, which passed H.Res. 2, merely fining him $25,000. Because he was seated when the case came to court, the defendants argued that the case was moot.

The Warren Court of the late 60’s (whose policies are revered by the modern Democratic Party) ruled 8-to-1 that Adam Powell, an elected US House Representative, could not be prevented from being seated in Congress. The majority opinion stated that the House could expel Rep. Powell by a vote of two-thirds, but it could not prevent his seating in the first place.

If a layman like me knows about Powell v. McCormack, wouldn't you think the Senator from Nevada should have a clue?

Roland Burris will be seated as a Senator from Illinois and Harry Reid will make a statement welcoming him.