Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the Federal Government Works

By
Monday, October 26, 2009 at 2:20 pm

I’ve just gotten my hands on the transcript of last Thursday’s Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on czars. There’s a lot in there, but the first thing I want to highlight is the dramatically incoherent testimony of Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.). I don’t know where to start with it. But Burris, in his short time on the Hill, has been plagued as much by the scandal surrounding his appointment as the rumors that he isn’t up to the job. This hearing didn’t help. Studded with phrases like “this is the meat that caused us political scientists to even exist” and “I’m certainly going read each and every one of you all’s testimony,” Burris’s questioning is almost impossible to understand.

By appointing Burris to inject racial politics into the battle to save his job, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) saddled Senate Democrats with one of the most dizzingly incoherent politicians in America, and threw the incredibly safe Illinois Senate seat open for a possible Republican takeover. Burris’s service in the Senate may one day be summed up by this accidental poem:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Read the full horror:

BURRIS: This has — being a constitutional and political science student, I mean, this is Political Science 101 or Political Science, maybe, 1000. The panel’s just been terrific.

And I have so many thoughts just rolling through my head, I don’t even know where to start. I mean, this is — this is the meat that caused us political scientists to even exist, because you’re dealing with these major issues of the separation of powers and the creation of this country and whether or not you want your president to really have the powers that you granted it, and whether or not the Congress, which is on similar or equal footing, can then control or muscle in on those powers of the president.

Based on the fact that — especially the House of Representatives, since they stand for re-election every two years and senators much longer, you — you have this constant power struggle as who is really representing the people and what that representation is going to mean when it gets to the — the policy decision that’s going to impact the public.

And I don’t know whether or not — I don’t think you can come up with a definition dealing with this. Having served in a governor’s cabinet and having dealt with those staffers, it almost depends on how strong the cabinet member is as to just what and how he’s going to deal with those situations and those circumstances.

Because having experienced that on the state level, and knowledgeable to some extent on the federal level — I was very close to the — to the Carter administration and had good insights into the workings of the White House and all of those decisions that were being made and how the gatekeepers really sought to filter the information that got to the president.

Every president’s going to go through it. I don’t even know how we in the Congress can legally — I mean, I heard the distinguished ranking member say that we passed a law. We can pass a law and say there’s going to be a position in there, but I don’t think the Congress can tell the president who to put in that position.

I mean, if we do that, then I think that we’re violating the separation of powers. I mean, this is what we get into. And you can create a position. What happens if — what happens if the president says, “I don’t want to appoint anybody as secretary of state. I’m going to use the undersecretary as an acting secretary”?

Is there a law that would require us or require the president to appoint a secretary of state? Is there? Is there?

CASEY: A law that requires the president to appoint a secretary of state?

BURRIS: Yes.

CASEY: Specifically, there would not be a law requiring him to do that. Now, of course, if he wants the functions that you vested in a secretary of state performed, he — he probably has to do…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But there is no law that says he has to even appoint a secretary of state, is that — am I correct?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: There’s a statute that says there’s a position — a secretary of state position…

CASEY: Right, right — shall be appointed in the following — yes — I’m unaware of any…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But is there a law that says the president has to make that appointment?

CASEY: Not that I’m aware of.

BURRIS: That’s the difficulty that we’re dealing with here. Is there a law that says that the president can appoint an acting person and how long can that person act?

CASEY: Yes. There is actually a law that governs…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: OK. How long can that person act?

CASEY: It is — I would actually have to look at the statute but it’s a matter of months, it’s not…

BURRIS: A matter of months, so that person…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: Otherwise, then, does the authority then leave that…

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

BURRIS: … that position?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: And who then assumes that authority in that position if the president refuses to send the name up for confirmation to us?

CASEY: Well, yes, there — there are various — many circumstances in which an acting official can continue to serve, especially if they are the — the normal principal deputy of the office that — that you’re talking about.

BURRIS: And what about these midnight appointments, as we hear? You know, the judges in the interim time, or Congress in — in recess…

CASEY: Recess appointments.

BURRIS: The recess appointments. And they serve for only a certain period of time, and — and otherwise…

CASEY: Right.

BURRIS: … that person would have to leave the position and — I mean, you can see all the questions that are just flowing through my process here, as we try to talk about czars and policy-makers. This is even bigger than — than czars.

I mean — you’re — you’re wrestling with this — this just wonderful document that’s created 200 and plus years ago that created our entity and this thing called separation of powers.

We haven’t even gotten into the judiciary side of this, which could also raise a whole lot of other questions.

So, Mr. President (sic), I really don’t have many questions, I just — I got more questions than I have answers, Mr. Chairman, in reference to this, because I — I just sit here and listen to the experts talk, and every time there was a statement made, there’s a — there’s a new question come to my mind, well, what about this? What ifs — What if? What if? And — and so, I find this so fascinating, and I’m — I’m certainly going read each and every one of you all’s testimony.

I don’t know how I’m going to get back to — to, you know, the hearing again to try to follow up on this but, Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that our grandchildren are going to be still wrestling with this same problem.

I don’t know whether or not — given us wanting to have a weak president who’s going to kowtow to Congress or us having this — a weak Congress who’s going to let a president run all over us, which you see in some of these cases.

I mean if, you know, if — if you say that we’re going to appropriate some money, then they don’t want to spend it, you know, they don’t spend it.

And you just heard what my distinguished senator from Utah says, that who the gatekeeper is to stop the information from getting to the president. So, you know, I’m more frustrated than I am — with questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: Congress| | | | |

Comments

48 Comments

Tweets that mention Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the Federal Government Works « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted October 26, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the Federal Government Works http://bit.ly/24bSCt [...]


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted October 26, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel: Is Roland Burris the stupidest man in America, or just in the Senate? http://bit.ly/1LM5R...


Much ado about PageRank | BananaBux
Pingback posted October 26, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

[...] Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the agent … [...]


Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the Federal Government Works
Pingback posted October 26, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

[...] Random Feed wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI’ve just gotten my hands on the transcript of last Thursday’s Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on czars. There’s a lot in there, but the first thing I want to highlight is the dramatically incoherent testimony of Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.). I don’t know where to start with it. But Burris, in his short time on the Hill, has been plagued as much by the scandal surrounding his appointment as the rumors that he isn’t up to the job. This hearing didn’t help. St [...]


archpundit
Comment posted October 26, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Roland had a few like that in Gubernatorial debates, but in those forums it would have been bad form to pass.


Shawn-In-TX
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:23 am

This is what the Chairman should have said: “Mr. Burris, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”


paulbarci
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:28 am

Maybe he should use “E-bonnets.”


Quo Vadis
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Man, that was a painful read. I need a drink…


Jerome
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:41 am

As a registered Illinois voter and a conservative, I am, once again, laughing my ass off at the rest of the “registered” Illinois voters who elect Democrats like Baloneyvich, Durbin, Jesse Jackson Jr., Todd Stroger, Danny Davis, etc.

(By the way, when was the last time anyone saw Jesse Jr.? Has a missing person report been filed?)


Doctor Biobrain
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:59 am

Having read that, I too have many more questions than answers. First off, what the hell did he think he was trying to say? And would it be too hard to give the man one of those earpieces Bush used in the 2004 debates?


jwwashburn
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:13 am

Friends don't let friends sit on a Senate Committee drunk.


wtfci
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:14 am

Roland Burris – Trailblazer!


jwwashburn
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:14 am

Oh good grief, give it a rest Olbermann. You tinfoil hat lefties are so tiring.


ajdaddy
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:26 am

Just now figured out the origin of the N word.
Thank you RB


webrider
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:59 am

Hell, he's probably in the upper fifty percent of intelligence for a Democrat Senator.


R_Burris
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 5:22 am

I am literally dumber for having read that.


R_Burris
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 5:25 am

If you all plug in my comments to an “e bonnets” translator, you will see that what I was really saying was “See. I am too stupid to be corrupt; I could never pull it off.” Hope it worked! See ya on the flip side!!


The Coalition Of The Swilling » The Greatest Deliberative Body On Earth
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 7:10 am

[...] my nominee … that person would have to leave the position and — I mean, you can see all the questions that [...]


eaglesdontflock
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 6:44 am

Oddly enough, I get what he's after.


Virginia
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 7:49 am

Dumb, but no dumber than having a hearing on “czars” in the first place.


My Pure Diet. Health News & Supplements.
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 9:59 am

[...] So. What is crazy accidental Illinois Senator Roland Burris up to, these days? Oh, just Senate stuff, you know. Talking about health care. Giving speeches. Asking utterly insane questions at pointless hearings about imaginary Czars. [...]


de stijl
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

Blagovich should have asked for more money.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

He is definitely the stupidest Democrat in the Senate, but he is still smarter than any of the republicans in the entire Congress.


de stijl
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

Gosh, that reverse racist shtick never gets old! Keep at it, son! The usurper will soon be defeated thanks to your blog comments.


Originalist
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Thanks,
I needed a laugh this morning. Burris nevers fails to disappoint…


Anonymous
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

Spken like a tru idiot there adelito, come on you can do better than that. Is you Kool Aid suger free?

Great post webrider, you hit the nail on the head


Quote of the Day | PoliPundit.com
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 10:40 am

[...] [...]


Gail Howe
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

Have you ever heard, never mind read, Rep. Johnson (D-Ga)? What makes it even more amazing he used to be a judge! First Cynthia now him. A conversation between him and Sen. Burris would be a classic, better than who’s on first or one with Casey Stengal.


sammytaylor.net
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 11:26 am

[...] Wow, Roland Burris is an incoherent individual. Go read this: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done… [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

Burris response: “Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.”


Roland Burris is getting educated « Blog of Few Words
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 11:31 am

[...] October 27, 2009 Hendo Leave a comment Go to comments My esteemed Senator, Roland Burris Has a Lot of Questions About How the Federal Government Works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m [...]


ktcat
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 11:49 am

What an idiot.


P
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Oh my God. He can’t be this stupid. His opponent has a great commercial.


Daniel
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

Good Lord.


ArchPundit | Not To Mention, He’s a Blithering Idiot
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

[...] Dave Weigel, who you should be reading if you are not, finds a particular bit of indecipherable verb…. I think Roland should put it on the mausoleum: [...]


None
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

oh…my…god…is he high or really that dumb?


bonzai
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

Roland Burris: Poster Boy for the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.


Roland Burris Gives a Lecture - The New Editor
Pingback posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

[...] Burris Gives a Lecture Roland Burris (D-IL) puts on a veritable clinic on our democratic republic. An instant classic. Posted by Tom Elia in Humor at 13:51 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) [...]


rouxdsla
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

Obviously you are a racist…. Oh never mind it's only racist to call Obama on his foibles.


JO3123
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

Sen. Tombstone is not running for re-election.


Name
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

Lesson learned: NEVER take a sip of beer while reading commentary about a Roland Burris speech. Oh, God, I almost choked to death laughing and swallowing.


JO3123
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

Sen. Tombstone is not running for re-election.


Name
Comment posted October 27, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

Lesson learned: NEVER take a sip of beer while reading commentary about a Roland Burris speech. Oh, God, I almost choked to death laughing and swallowing.


The Non-Elite of the Left « The Cassandra Files
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

[...] Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on czars.(Transcript via Dave Weigel @ the Washington Independent. Emphasis mine.) The poor man just has a lot of questions: BURRIS: [...]


adidas originals
Comment posted June 5, 2010 @ 1:44 am

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.


Dog bark collar
Comment posted February 19, 2011 @ 9:29 am

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic.


Dog bark collar
Comment posted February 19, 2011 @ 9:29 am

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic.


1337860
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

1337860 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.