Can a sitting President end the Burris and Franken stalemates?

So I don't expect pResident Bush to do anything, but once Obama takes the oath of office does he as President have any powers that can end this?

I guess they will have to wait until those Justices retire who have been hanging in there, and Obama appoints some new ones.

But my point was that the president has no authority over state decisions, and he can do nothing but influence the US Congress from the outside. If the appropriate people appeal to the SCOTUS, then SCOTUS would have authority to make a decision, based on the judicial merits of the case (except in Bush v Gore in 2000, but that's another subject).

Otherwise, the states have the authority to certify who their laws allow them to choose, and the Senate has the Constitutional authority to refuse to seat any senator if they choose, so even the Court can't reverse their decision. The only thing SCOTUS could rule on would be whether the choice of the states was Constitutional, or whether something in the selection process violated Constitutional rights and protections garuanteed the states, the voters, or the candidates.

The situations are different for Burris and Franken. No one (that I've heard) is questioning whether Burris has a legal right to be named Senator by Blagojevich. The Senate is simply saying they won't accept the choice, and won't allow him to be seated as a senator. The Constitution gives them that authority, and even SCOTUS can't block it. So he can be legally appointed, and yet legally refused his seat. That will have to be a political decision, not a judicial or legislative one. Obama could voice his opinion, and probably even sway the Senate to seat him if he tried, but it would be an unofficial role.

Franken is different. Cornyn is threatening to block his seating because he is arguing over the legality of Franken's win, based on state law and Constitutional protections. Supposedly, then, if Franken meets all legal requirements for a win, then Cornyn will back down. Even if Cornyn doesn't, it's unlikely that many would back his filibuster. The Supreme Court can rule on whether the Franken election is legal. If it is, then Cornyn's argument disappears, and I suspect even he would back down.

That's my analysis. I ain't a lawyer, so it's worthless.

Your explanation is helpful nonetheless.

He won so there isn't any reason for him not to be sworn in.

As far a the Burris situation goes the President has no power other than his personal influence and I don't think Obama wants anything to do with it.

he changed his mind.

Outside of personally telling Coleman not to sue or whatever. With Burris, I don't think he can do a thing.

therefore open the way for the Lt. Gen. Quinn to become governor and then appoint a Senator and can he do it before the end of the month? Surely, Obama has some influence in Chicago politics where he can informally request that this happen even though there is no rule of law to do it.

No, thanks.

it doesn't have to be illegal like Bush has done it. Blago is a fellow Democrat. Obama is within his rights to request that a fellow Democrat stop soiling the Party with his corruption and resign, I believe. Remember it was the Republicans who demanded that Nixon resign before he was impeached because his actions were a blight on the Republican Party. So there is a precedent for this.

Burris is not implicated in the charges against Blagojevich, and there is NO reason for Franken to not be seated. Reid, continuing the pattern of the last 8 years, is being the obstructionist, keeping the Democrats from doing what we need to do.

Oh yeah I think he could try to do that, but I'm not sure how good any of that would look. I think it would be tough for him to get goofy Blago to resign though. That guy will probably have to be carried away kicking and screaming. I read your OP too fast or something.

I don't know how he feels about Franken.

It's that whole separation of powers thing in the Constitution that Bush and Cheney don't believe in.

Obama might be able to make a public statement on the issue, but I doubt he'll even do that, and if asked by the press, he'll do nothing but express support for fellow Democrats and say that this is the Senate's problem to deal with.