This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This list needs a tiny bit more context. What "Union"? What does "Class 2" mean, "Class 3"? Remember, articles should make sense to people who hit 'random article' -- like me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Should thetitle be "United States Senators for Illinois" ? Since not all senators from Illinois represented it, and not all Illinois representing senators were originally from Illinois. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to originally be from a place to say you are from that place. Moreover, in the Senate, members refer to each other as "the Senator from Illinois" or "my friend from Kansas". They do not make distinctions based on where the Senator was born. The same also applies in the House of Representatives, where "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" replaces "senator". Finally, this is the naming convention used for each state. As such, a proposal to change it should be held in a more central location. -Rrius (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
inasmuch as Senator Burris has been duly and legally appointed to the position--facts that are not in dispute--it is correct and sufficient enough for his inclusion on this list as designate until his status changes --emerson7 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is exactly the dispute. The basis the Senate Democrats are using is the "elections and returns" part of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution under the theory that Blagojevich's corruption so taints the appointment process that it is not a valid appointment. It is a crappy argument, but it is the argument of the Majority Leader and Majority Whip of the United States Senate. It is dishonest to act as though there is not doubt about whether he will be sworn in in due course. The news has been full of statements from Reid and Durbin from December 30 through today about not wanting to seat him—some public, some private. Saying "designate" is not sufficient information and does not adequately reflect the reference I provided.
I'm saying all this as a person from Illinois who dearly hopes he is seated both for my state's benefit and for the benefit of the rule of law. That POV, however, cannot dictate how the information is prevented on this page. We already know he is not going to be seated tomorrow because the Secretary of the Senate has rejected his credentials, and Burris does not meet with Reid until Wednesday, which is also the earliest he'll hear from the Illinois Supreme Court about his petition for mandamus against Jesse White, which he'll need to have his credentials accepted by the Secretary of the Senate for presentation to the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
all of that notwithstanding, wikipedia does not peddle in speculation...only fact. it is a fact that he was appointed, and although the entire process in under fire, speculation on what may or may not happen is inappropriate under the per wp:Crystal and a halve dozen other guidelines. --emerson7 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not speculation. All of this has been widely reported in reliable sources. Noting that there is uncertainty because the Senate leadership have said they won't seat him is not speculation; it is a simple statement of fact. Treating his appointment as a normal appointment is dishonest. Simply saying he is a senator-designate does not tip people of to the uncertainty because all appointed senators are senators-designate for some period. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)