What exactly is Dan Seals' base?

He doesn't have an electoral base – he's never won anything. He's never proven he could WIN – in 2 heavily Democratic years.

I ask again, why would Black people vote for this man outside of the fact that he's Black? That's the ONLY thing he could offer. He can't offer any sort of resume to the Black community.

As I said before, there are White candidate, who can actually point to things they've done in the Black community. And Seals has none of that.

He's never WON anything. He doesn't have any sort of legislative record; he doesn't have an electoral base…so, I'm still trying to see how he's so 'electable'.

As for the definition of returns, Akil Amar Reed and Josh Chafetz describe it as :

Following English parliamentary tradition and early Colonial and state practice, the framers made the Senate its own gatekeeper and guardian. Each house of Congress is “the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members,” according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. At the founding, Senators were elected by state legislatures. If the Senate believed that legislators in a given state had been bribed into voting for a particular candidate, the Senate could refuse to seat him.

Because of the word “returns” in Section 5, what is true of elected Senators is equally true of appointed Senators. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “Return” in the time of the framers involved a report of an appointment made by a sheriff or other official. If the Senate may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt election, it likewise may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt appointment process.

And in line with your last statement, why would it not make sense for Reid–or Quinn–the person with the appt power and actual knowledge of Chi-town politicians–to appoint Seals and let Seals work his butt off for two years as Senator while also reaching out to the Black community?

Don't get me wrong–Seals could be the devil himself for all I know. But so far, the biggest argument against him–and the argument for the apparent race baiting of Reid–is that Seals has no ties to the Black community. My whole thing is, what qualifies as sufficient “ties” to the Blk community, and why wouldn't Seals be able to engage in more active outreach while in office?

However, the distinction you make about Powell being elected is not significant in terms of the court ruling. The ruling was that the Senate can only consider the qualifications as set for in the US Constitution, whether the individual is appointed or elected. The only judgment that can be made by the Senate is on the basis of the US Constitution.

In other words, this is about the LAW, not about whether a majority of Senators AGREE., they do not want an individual in the chamber. Their decision is pre-empted by the constitutionality of the process. Is it Constitutional or not? If it is, they have no power beyond that!!

We can take Burris' word. We have no reason not to. He is not accused of anything. Blagojevich is. That is no reason to smear Burris' record, character or word.

What exactly is Dan Seals' base?

He doesn't have an electoral base – he's never won anything. He's never proven he could WIN – in 2 heavily Democratic years.

I ask again, why would Black people vote for this man outside of the fact that he's Black? That's the ONLY thing he could offer. He can't offer any sort of resume to the Black community.

As I said before, there are White candidate, who can actually point to things they've done in the Black community. And Seals has none of that.

He's never WON anything. He doesn't have any sort of legislative record; he doesn't have an electoral base…so, I'm still trying to see how he's so 'electable'.

As for the definition of returns, Akil Amar Reed and Josh Chafetz describe it as :

Following English parliamentary tradition and early Colonial and state practice, the framers made the Senate its own gatekeeper and guardian. Each house of Congress is “the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members,” according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. At the founding, Senators were elected by state legislatures. If the Senate believed that legislators in a given state had been bribed into voting for a particular candidate, the Senate could refuse to seat him.

Because of the word “returns” in Section 5, what is true of elected Senators is equally true of appointed Senators. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “Return” in the time of the framers involved a report of an appointment made by a sheriff or other official. If the Senate may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt election, it likewise may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt appointment process.

And in line with your last statement, why would it not make sense for Reid–or Quinn–the person with the appt power and actual knowledge of Chi-town politicians–to appoint Seals and let Seals work his butt off for two years as Senator while also reaching out to the Black community?

Don't get me wrong–Seals could be the devil himself for all I know. But so far, the biggest argument against him–and the argument for the apparent race baiting of Reid–is that Seals has no ties to the Black community. My whole thing is, what qualifies as sufficient “ties” to the Blk community, and why wouldn't Seals be able to engage in more active outreach while in office?

However, the distinction you make about Powell being elected is not significant in terms of the court ruling. The ruling was that the Senate can only consider the qualifications as set for in the US Constitution, whether the individual is appointed or elected. The only judgment that can be made by the Senate is on the basis of the US Constitution.

In other words, this is about the LAW, not about whether a majority of Senators AGREE., they do not want an individual in the chamber. Their decision is pre-empted by the constitutionality of the process. Is it Constitutional or not? If it is, they have no power beyond that!!

We can take Burris' word. We have no reason not to. He is not accused of anything. Blagojevich is. That is no reason to smear Burris' record, character or word.