Well, he’s not particularly popular in the editorial pages of the nation’s newspapers. Perhaps his threats against the Tribune’s editors have something to do with that.
This morning the nation’s newspapers echo what I wrote yesterday on the subject of our indicted governor, Rod Blagojevich. The Chicago Tribune minces no words: “Governor Blagojevich, Resign”
The governor must resign immediately. If he doesn’t, the Illinois House should begin proceedings to impeach him, and to ask the Senate to try him.
nor does the Sun-Times: “Gov. Blagojevich must go—right now”
If Gov. Blagojevich does not resign immediately, impeach him.
The Springfield State Journal-Register states it forthrightly:
If five-plus years of utterly inept governance have not made it obvious enough, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s criminal complaint Tuesday did: It is time for Rod Blagojevich to step down as governor of Illinois.
Short of that, the Illinois General Assembly must convene immediately to remove Blagojevich from office by impeachment. We emphasize “immediately.â€
There is simply too much at stake here for any other resolution.
The New York Times is reserved:
Mr. Blagojevich must be deemed innocent until proved guilty. But surely the recorded conversations, full of expletive-laced schemes, render him unfit to appoint anyone, least of all himself, to the vacant Senate seat.
If he refuses to step aside, the Illinois Legislature should move to bypass him by removing his appointment power, impeaching him or scheduling a special election. Certainly no self-respecting candidate should accept an appointment by Mr. Blagojevich.
If there were more “self-respecting”—as the term should be used rather than in the sense of giving oneself undo credit—Illinois politicians the state wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in with three recent former governors convicted for corruption and a fourth now indicted.
The Washington Post supports the suggestion of Illinois’s remaining Sen. Dick Durbin:
The best solution to this problem is for the Illinois legislature to call a special election to fill Mr. Obama’s seat, as proposed yesterday by the state’s senior U.S. senator, Richard J. Durbin. Outgoing Illinois Senate President Emil Jones announced late yesterday that he would call his chamber back into session to pass a bill authorizing the vote “to help restore the confidence of the people of Illinois at this difficult time.” If Illinois legislators need encouragement to adopt this admittedly expensive and time-consuming proposition, Mr. Obama — who has not been implicated in Mr. Fitzgerald’s allegations — should provide it.
From what I can tell, the Illinois House has only initiated impeachment proceedings on three prior occasions. In 1832, the House began impeachment proceedings against Justice Theophilus Smith of Madison County with several criminal and ethical complaints, including selling the public office of the clerk. A nearly equally divided Senate failed to convict.
In 1842, Justice Thomas Brown was subject of impeachment deliberations due to insufficient mental ability, believed to be occasioned by a Democratic plot to pack the Illinois Supreme Court by getting Whigs removed. Brown’s attorney in the impeachment was Abraham Lincoln, whose opening statement was apparently so persuasive that the House passed a gag rule prohibiting Lincoln from speaking for the remainder of the proceeding. Articles of impeachment do not appear to have been sent to the Senate.
About ten years ago, an inquiry was initiated against Justice Heiple, arising from a grossly unpopular decision and belligerent conduct during a traffic stop and in reducing a clerk’s salary. Heiple retained (ahem) former Governor Jim Thompson to defend him in the impeachment proceedings. Thompson ran a number of arguments through the process that I would expect to be replayed here. The House Committee told Thompson that this was not a judicial proceeding, it was an inquiry and he wouldn’t be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Thompson claimed that the Justice had a property right to his job which was protected by the due process clause of the U.S. and state constitutions. (I disagree) The Committee ultimately allowed a right to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses. In a process that took about thirty days, the Committee recommended a finding that grounds for impeachment had not been established. I believe Heiple resigned shortly after the judicial commission censured him, so the House did not vote on the Committee’s recommendation. The lasting effect, however, is that there appears to have been a lot of legal briefing on impeachment during the course of the Heiple proceedings and at least some procedures were given the defendant.
Yikes, I didn’t realize I had written that much.
“Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution,” said Schulz.
Monday’s P.M. Press Conference…
Where is It?