ILLINOIS' SLIPPERY SLOPE: ONE LAW FOR BAD GUYS, ANOTHER FOR "GOOD GUYS"

Well, kiddies, it's come down to this.

Our lawfully elected Governor appointed a new Senator. Our Sec'y of State, who says he had a deal with Senator Durbin that he wouldn't sign any appointee refuses for attest the Governor's signature. Our Supreme Court says that, not only is the Sec'y of State's signature superfluous, but the appointment is valid and complete. For those of you scoring at home, the Illinois Supreme Court is final arbiter of all matters involving State of Illinois Law.

At least one Senator says there is a "longstanding Rule" requiring both signatures and therefore, we will ignore the Illinois Supreme Court and the Senate will interpret what is a valid appointment in Illinois. This is necessary because the Governor is not a good guy.

This argument is makeweight, at best for at least the following reasons.

1. There is no Rule in the Senate--at least nobody can produce one. Rather, it is somebody's interpretation of custom and practice;

2. If the U.S. Senate is going to perform the Supreme Judicial Function for Illinois, there is no point for having one--we'll just refer all of our State Law Disputes to the U.S. Senate;

3. The argument that the Governor "taints" any appointment he might make is a very nice moral point and I'm sure goes over just swell in Sunday School class or WCTU meeting but he was Governor when he made the appointment, the law gave him the power of appointment and it has now been judicially ajudicated as a lawful appointment;

4. The "Bad Guy" argument is the slipperiest of all slopes. Accepting for the sake of argument that the Governor is a guilty of corruption, mail fraud, jock itch and bad breath, all the more reason to follow the law. When we have two classes of folks and we only apply the black letter of the law to situations involving folks we like and we make up special rules after the fact for situations involving folks we don't like, we really have no law at all.

5. This is really a question of States' Rights. Illinois and her citizens either have the right to have a Senator selected through the process that was created by law or they don't. If they don't, then the citizens of Nevada or North Dakota or South Carolina are in the same boat. The minute leadership doesn't like your appointee, Nevada, North Dakota or South Carolina, they just decide to declare his or her appointment invalid and their legislative federal power outweighs your State's right to select a Senator by whatever lawful process you have engaged. We'll just kind of decide whether the appointee or the appointor is a good guy or a bad guy and then make rules accordingly, on the fly as we go.

For those of you who have some grasp of history, you will have noted some irony here. States' Rights arguments have frequently been used to disadvantage black people. Note that, while no mention of race has been made in the foregoing points, here the the States' Rights argument and the expressed African-American Representation Issue merge.

Isn't that special?