In December 1919, an amazing thing happened in this country. The winner of the 1918 US House election for the Wisconsin 5th was elected again to fill the very same seat he had won in the last general election. He had not resigned, he had been a legal U.S. Citizen, and he was old enough to hold office- in fact he had held the same seat before from 1910-1912. Victor Berger was an anti-war socialist, and in November 1918, he was under indictment for committing espionage against the United States. He had not given state secrets away, he had not provided any form of material aid to a foreign enemy, he had not even supported a foreign enemy. Victor Berger was merely opposed to World War I.
This was a depressing time in our nation's history; E.E. Cummings, not yet the noted poet, had been in France serving the allied forces as an emergency ambulance driver starting in 1917. He was arrested, and thrown in a prison camp for violating the Espionage Act. His crime? He noted that he lacked hatred for Germans. Robert M. LaFollette, the long time Senator form Wisconsin, was barred by his colleagues from speaking on the Senate Floor; they rightly feared his powerful speaking ability and his opposition to the War and War Profiteering. Many time Socialist candidate for President, Eugene V. Debs was convicted. Emma Goldman, the noted Anarchist Thinker, would be deported from the country on the grounds of her opposition.
In between his 1918 victory and his 1919 one, Victor Berger was indeed convicted, though his conviction would be overturned on the minor detail that the presiding judge, not-yet baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis had filed an affidavit of prejudice before presiding over the case. But that was later, and 1919 Berger was once again denied by the House under the elections, returns and qualifications passage. His seat would remain vacant until 1921. And in 1922, his conviction now overturned, Berger would be sent back to Congress for three more terms by his constituents.
What is the point of this? The point is that Victor Berger was 58 years old, an American citizen, and elected twice in a free and fair election by his constituents, in full knowledge that he was in legal trouble for opposing World War I. And twice, the US House refused to seat him. He was not expelled; he simply wasn't seated.
Now, Ronald Burris has no noble claim to being persecuted for freedom of speech like Berger did, and he was not in fact elected. But we should remember Victor Berger as a dark spot in our history; a time when paranoia and fear stuck down freedom of speech and the rule of law, when a good man and the people he represented were denied the chance to oppose a War in congress. And we should not encourage a precedent to be established where anyone is denied a seat in Congress for anything other than being under age, not an American citizen, not living in the state they claim to represent, or having been fraudulently elected. For the Senate to do anything other than look at whether Burris is over the age of 30, nine years a citizen, a resident of Illinois, and appointed according to the law would be a gross abuse of power.
The Senate is given another way to remove a member, if they find him objectionable on other grounds, and let Harry Reid try to expel Burris. I would support it. He has no business being there, as the appointee of a corrupt governor who should long be gone. But there is a right way and a wrong way, and if the right way does not work, so be it. The wrong way is wrong, and we have seen that in the past.
And, by the way, the appointment of Ronald Burris has nothing to do with Al Franken, who should not be seated until Minnesota certifies that he has indeed won. Which I believe he did. But if John Cornyn wasn't just making stuff up- which I firmly believe he was- he happens to be right. Franken should not be seated until he has won.