Should Jesse White Sign?

Those who have been following the perpetual scandal that is Illinois politics have heard Hot Rod Blagojevich has recently appointed Roland Burris to former Senator Obama's vacated seat. The U.S. Senate has so far refused to seat Mr. Burris, likely because they have no desire to associate themselves with the corruption emanating from Springfield. Hey, no problem...who could blame 'em? It's unclear whether the Senate has the right to refuse to seat a legitimate appointment made by a legitimate governor, but this topic has been kicked around many times that it's no longer groundbreaking. (If you're interested, though, I like Steve Chapman's take.)

What interests me is the part of this story that relates to Jesse White, the Secretary of State in Illinois (if you've been to an Illinois DMV recently, you've undoubtedly seen pictures of Mr. White). As at least partial justification for refusing to seat Mr. Burris, the Senate points to Mr. White's refusal to sign the official appointment given to him by Governor Blagojevich. Mr. White declines to sign because of the "moral issue" inherent in (quite literally) endorsing the action of a man who, while not convicted, has certainly done some wrong (I could make a haircut joke here, but Chicagoans have been hearing 'em for so long that they're cliche).

For our purposes, let's assume that Jesse White's refusal to sign is actually an obstacle in Mr. Burris' path to Washington--Mr. White himself claims that his signature is not necessary for Burris to be seated. What should Mr. White do? On the one hand, he has a legal obligation to sign the appointment. On the other, his morals tell him not to. His refusal functions as a de facto veto of a lawful gubernatorial action, and surely the Secretary of State has no veto power. Which should triumph, the legal duty or the moral duty? Where, if anywhere, is he getting this moral obligation? Should there be a law higher than, well, the law?

Unfortunately, I have more questions than I have answers for this one, so hopefully y'all can provide some insight. Thinking out loud here, I'm assuming that the Secretary of State takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Illinois constitution. He's subverting the constitution, so isn't he breaking that oath? On the other hand, one could argue that oaths and similar promises are made with the implicit understanding that, in a conflict between keeping one's promise and defending one's own morality, the morality interest will always prevail. When you promise to pick someone up at the airport, have you broken that promise in a morally wrong way if the only possible way to pick him up is to steal a car? (Let's say your own car broke down.)

I wish I had a conclusion that gave all the answers, but I'm pretty stumped myself. I wish I could start this page off with a discussion that resolved itself a bit more definitively, but the ongoing drama in D.C. won't be Page One material for long. I guess I'm sacrificing completeness for topicality.

_____________

and now for something completely unrelated...

If you're looking for a good rap song, check this out. The beat samples Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing", if I'm not mistaken. Like it enough? Download it here, then send me the mp3 because I don't have a way to unzip files.