quote:Originally posted by msquared: I am sort of surprised at this. I would have thought he would qualify.
Didn't someone make sure the courts were paid off? I mean, that's the Chicago way.
To be more clear here- this is the 3rd out of four levels; he won at the Election Board level and with the initial judge, lost on appeal, and will go for the Supreme Court. This doesn't change much that would have happened anyway other than giving an opportunity for more news coverage on the way; the SC decision is the only one that fully matters, and I expect that he has a high enough profile that it wasn't likely to stop short of there.
Posts: 7640 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the supreme court rules against him, would that provide evidence against the cynical view of Chicago politics?
Posts: 2754 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that I would elect him dog catcher to say nothing of Mayor if I was a Chicago resident. That said, I don't see why he wouldn't qualify to be on the ballot.
He has been a long time resident of the city and is registered to vote there. Yes he has been living in or near Washington DC for the last two years, but that was while working for our Dear Leader, The One, President Obama, and instead of letting his home sit empty for an undetermined number of years he rented it out.
Now he may have made some technical errors, such as not ensuring in the lease language that he can move back into his home with a reasonable amount of notice to the tenant before the lease runs out, and there may be other technicalities that he might be afoul of, but the spirit of election law that he be a citizen of Chicago to be allowed to run for "His Honor", I mean Mayor, has not been broken. He did move back to Chicago immediately after leave the service of The One and rented a home until such time as he can resolve the situation with his tenant. I'm sure that the state Supreme Court will get him back on track to taking his turn as "His Honor" without too much fuss.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only argument that holds water refers not to his service as a house rep., but to the two *additional* years he served in the WH. That's not service to the people of Chicago, but rather moving away for a job like any other, so he doesn't necessarily deserve an exemption for that.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that your point is a valid one Ricky, so I guess that it comes down to how the Illinois State Supreme Court sees those two years. Were they service to Chicago, as a person working in the service of President of the United States, or were they just another job for which he moved to a different city and therefore gave up his residency? If the former, why the hangup on technicalities, and if the latter then shouldn't he have changed his drivers license to the state or district in which he was residing and similarly shouldn't he have registered to vote in that locality rather than maintaining his Chicago voter registration and I believe exercising it?
Editing to add: What are the exceptions allowed concerning residency? I know that military service is one, and I believe that serving in an elected office is one. I thought that a resident of a Congressman's district that accompanied him to DC in his service was able to maintain his residency, and if so wouldn't that extend to other elected officials as well? Students certainly seem to choose where and when they will vote. I'm sure that there are others. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will find a suitable residency exception and apply it.
[ January 24, 2011, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Were they service to Chicago, as a person working in the service of President of the United States, or were they just another job for which he moved to a different city and therefore gave up his residency? If the former, why the hangup on technicalities, and if the latter then shouldn't he have changed his drivers license to the state or district in which he was residing and similarly shouldn't he have registered to vote in that locality rather than maintaining his Chicago voter registration and I believe exercising it? "
I totally agree. Rahm's conduct displays every intent of resuming full time residency in Chicago. However, saying that serving on the President's staff is service to the people of Chicago is a dangerous thing. It basically means officially acknowledging some sort of unlawful bias. An elected rep is expected to bring home pork - that's an explicit part of the job description, and not, as certain faux-populists love to bleat, some terrible blight on the face of democracy. But once we recognize that if the WH chief of staff is gonna deliver pork to his or her hometown, not as some vague reality acknowledgment but as a legitimate lal argument of how things should be, that's a dangerous precedent. The President is not Louis XIV, the country isn't him and service to him may be service to the country at large, but not to any specific town.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was a split decision by two judges of a three judge panel, so it would seem the outcome is still very much in doubt. For myself I feel a citizen should be entitled to run for office where he is entitled to vote, but we shall see what the Supreme Court concludes. And the converse would be interesting - perhaps he should be prosecuted for voting in the city when he was not a resident. Meanwhile this is all publicity for his campaign, so the twists of the legal case could end up helping him in the long run.
Posts: 4316 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The decision accepted his argument that he was serving the United States. But they pointed out that the exemption from the residence requirement for people serving the US is for voting. Not for candidacy. Rahm may actually have blown this one on a technicality.
If Rahm gets up and responds with an argument that yes, he really was serving the US, you'll know he's desperate, because they agreed to that.
Posts: 2007 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But they pointed out that the exemption from the residence requirement for people serving the US is for voting. Not for candidacy."
I don't think that's gonna hold. That basically means he can't run anywhere, since I don't think he can run for mayor in DC where he's not registered to vote. That seems like unfair discrimination.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RickyB: "But they pointed out that the exemption from the residence requirement for people serving the US is for voting. Not for candidacy."
I don't think that's gonna hold. That basically means he can't run anywhere, since I don't think he can run for mayor in DC where he's not registered to vote. That seems like unfair discrimination.
I don't see that. Listening to the guy reading the court decision yesterday sounded like a Gemara shiur, actually.
The requirements for candidacy are in a different section of the law than the requirements for being a voter or an elector. Both sections require a year's residency. The voter section adds that no one shall be disqualified as a voter on the basis of non-residency if that non-residency was due to serving the US.
I don't see how it's discriminatory to say that someone who has lived in two different places during a year can't run for office in either one that year. There'll be other years, after all.
Rahm's case isn't that he wasn't absent. It's that he's exempt from that requirement because he was serving the US. The court said, "Yep. We agree that he was serving the US. But what does that have to do with anything?" Because the law doesn't say anything about an exemption from the residency requirement for candidates.
See, if Rahm had spent even a year in yeshiva, he probably wouldn't have missed that niggling little detail, and he could have let Daley continue to be mayor until Obama got voted out in 2012 and then run for mayor here in 2013 or something.
That said, this is, after all, Chicago, and the fact that the law isn't in his favor isn't necessarily the end of the story.
Posts: 2007 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RickyB: I don't think that's gonna hold. That basically means he can't run anywhere, since I don't think he can run for mayor in DC where he's not registered to vote. That seems like unfair discrimination.
Discrimination, yes, but what makes this unfair? The justification would be that someone ought not be mayor of a city of which they have not been a part for the last year. Is non-residency a protected class, now?
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and then run for mayor here in 2013 or something."
Y'all have elections every two years? By my reckoning he'd have to wait till 2015. I think that telling people "if you go to DC to serve you won't be able to run for office for several years anywhere" is not conducive to getting good talent to serve.
Oh, and seeing the lay of the land right now, I doubt Obama will be voted out in 2012.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, his name is back on the ballot, though whether he can be elected is still up to the discretion of the SC
Posts: 9925 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, if Rahm had spent even a year in yeshiva, he probably wouldn't have missed that niggling little detail...
I know too many Orthodox Jews to credit this.
Ridiculous comment. Not every Orthodox Jew goes to yeshiva, so your comment is a complete non sequitur. Also, the slur is a bit much for this board, no?
Posts: 2007 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not obvious whether you meant a yeshiva gedola or something else, Lisa. Almost every Jew I know has attended yeshiva of one form or another, and 100% of the Orthodox Jews I know (for whom I know the answer) did indeed attend yeshiva.
Anyway, assuming Tom knows of whom he speaks and knows whether they attended yeshiva, then it's not a slur whatsoever - and let's face it: you opened up the topic by claiming some type of superior education and thinking processes for those who have attended yeshiva.
If you can use such a generalization to humorously disparage someone, it seems fair game to allow similar and oposite humorous observations in counterpoint, no?
Posts: 9925 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not obvious whether you meant a yeshiva gedola or something else, Lisa. Almost every Jew I know has attended yeshiva of one form or another,
I don't know what Jews you have met, but I grew up in a Jewish community and went to Jewish parochial school and I never met anyone who attended a yeshiva.
Posts: 7098 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmph - this may be a bastardization of the term, but yeshiva can be used to describe any school that teaches Torah, Mishnah and Talmud.
Posts: 9925 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't know what Jews you have met, but I grew up in a Jewish community and went to Jewish parochial school and I never met anyone who attended a yeshiva. "
Was it an **orthodox** Jewish community? Orthodox as in black hat?
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orthodox and black hat aren't even close to the same thing, Ricky. Just because the word is used that way in Hebrew in Israel doesn't mean that it's used that way in the rest of the world. Orthodox means Torah observant. It means keeping Shabbat and keeping kosher and keeping taharat hamishpacha and davening in a kosher way (no egalitarian nonsense).
Posts: 2007 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that, Lisa. That's why I asked if it was black hat, so as to distinguish from "modern orthodox".
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
Did anyone really think Rahm was not gonna be on the ballot? He's going to "win" the election too. It's in the bag. This is Chicago and these are Democrats. The machine is well entrenched, this was never in doubt. Not for a minute. If that means saying you always meant to move somewhere you own a rental property makes you a resident of that place, then that's what they'll do. Laws really are irrelevant and, as we've seen demonstrated in ObamaCare, completely malleable.
IP: Logged |
posted
"If that means saying you always meant to move somewhere you own a rental property makes you a resident of that place, then that's what they'll do."
You mean "move back." If you were a stupider and more innocent person, I'd believe you didn't know Emanuel is actually from Chicago and lived there his entire life until 2003 when he was first sent by his fellow Chicago residents to Congress.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rahm pays property taxes in Chicago, votes in Chicago, and his drivers license says he lives in Chicago. He just happens to travel for work 360 days a year. If he hadn't rented out his home there wouldn't have been any questions about his eligibility. As it is, the group with the most authority to settle the question has settled the question. Game on.
Posts: 3368 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by RickyB: "If that means saying you always meant to move somewhere you own a rental property makes you a resident of that place, then that's what they'll do."
You mean "move back." If you were a stupider and more innocent person, I'd believe you didn't know Emanuel is actually from Chicago and lived there his entire life until 2003 when he was first sent by his fellow Chicago residents to Congress.
I grew up in another state, lived there until I was an adult. I inherited my parent's house and currently rent it. I bet you think I'm still a resident of that state don't you? All I need to do is claim I always intended to move back. If you were a stupider and more innocent person, you'd just be a talking monkey.
IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by philnotfil: Rahm pays property taxes in Chicago, votes in Chicago, and his drivers license says he lives in Chicago. He just happens to travel for work 360 days a year. If he hadn't rented out his home there wouldn't have been any questions about his eligibility. As it is, the group with the most authority to settle the question has settled the question. Game on.
I also pay property taxes in another state. It would probably be trivial for me to set up voting there and get a license. So in a nutshell, all anyone needs to do is buy a house somewhere and like magic they're a resident of that state. Somehow, I don't think that's the way the deal was supposed to be but when the stakes are high enough I guess nothing really matters but the outcome.
Game on? The game has never been on. Rahm said he wanted it so cut the deal for it. Game over. Laws and elections are irrelevant now.
IP: Logged |
posted
"I grew up in another state, lived there until I was an adult"
Until you were an adult. As opposed to well into adulthood and elected to congress from said state. I'm sorry, are these distinction too fine for the coarse implement you call a mind?
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So in a nutshell, all anyone needs to do is buy a house somewhere and like magic they're a resident of that state.
*polite cough* Cheney.
or Hillary. This "they do it too" defense is, as I've already pointed out, a logical fallacy.
IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by RickyB: "I grew up in another state, lived there until I was an adult"
Until you were an adult. As opposed to well into adulthood and elected to congress from said state. I'm sorry, are these distinction too fine for the coarse implement you call a mind?
What states have a limit on how many years you lived there after the age of 18? I spent a number of years in several states at the military's direction. You seem to think all I need to do is buy a house there and I'm a resident of those states too. By your definition, I could become a citizen of nearly half a dozen states simultaneously. Seriously, lay off the dope Ricky. It's messing you up more than you know.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by G2: Game over. Laws and elections are irrelevant now.
G2, don't be so naive. This is Chicago/Illinois were talking about. This isn't exactly breaking News for that area.
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference, G2, is that Rahm actually lived there. Speaking as a former Chicagoan myself, Rahm is a Chicagoan.
quote:I spent a number of years in several states at the military's direction. You seem to think all I need to do is buy a house there and I'm a resident of those states too.
That's where the whole "declare your primary residence" thing comes in, actually. Interestingly, depending on some states' residency laws, you may be considered a resident for some purposes if you own a home and pay real estate taxes there.
Posts: 18710 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by philnotfil: Rahm pays property taxes in Chicago, votes in Chicago, and his drivers license says he lives in Chicago. He just happens to travel for work 360 days a year. If he hadn't rented out his home there wouldn't have been any questions about his eligibility. As it is, the group with the most authority to settle the question has settled the question. Game on.
I also pay property taxes in another state. It would probably be trivial for me to set up voting there and get a license. So in a nutshell, all anyone needs to do is buy a house somewhere and like magic they're a resident of that state. Somehow, I don't think that's the way the deal was supposed to be but when the stakes are high enough I guess nothing really matters but the outcome.
Game on? The game has never been on. Rahm said he wanted it so cut the deal for it. Game over. Laws and elections are irrelevant now.
Buy a house in that state, register to vote in that state, get a drivers license in that state, and yes, you will be considered a resident of that state.
My little sister telecommutes to an office in D.C. from a South American country, but is a resident of the state of Florida (why? because Florida has no state income tax). Perfectly legal. May not match the common use of resident, but it matches the legal definition of resident, which is the one that matters to the courts.
Posts: 3368 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
G2
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by G2: Game on? The game has never been on. Rahm said he wanted it so cut the deal for it. Game over. Laws and elections are irrelevant now.
The background:
quote:From the moment Mayor Daley shocked the city with his announcement in September he would not seek re-election Emanuel held the position of frontrunner, a status that was only reinforced after Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart took a pass on the mayor’s race.
That's the deal being brokered. Rahm was mayor then, no election would matter after that.
The result:
quote:Emanuel scored a runaway victory, taking 55 percent of the vote to Gery Chico’s 24 percent.
Also surprising, water is wet.
The final analysis:
quote: “Two things are surreal: the nature of the victory and how fast it got counted. What is this California? I’ve only been gone two years. What happened?” said campaign strategist David Axelrod, who worked together with Emanuel in President Obama’s White House.
Surreal. Is Axlerod surprised it was a runaway? It was always a runaway, everyone knows that. Who does he think he's fooling?
How fast it got counted? That one is a knee slapper! As if there was any counting going on...
IP: Logged |
posted
One of my best friends worked as an election monitor for that election. What evidence do you have that suggests fraud, G2?
Posts: 18710 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I don't know what Jews you have met, but I grew up in a Jewish community and went to Jewish parochial school and I never met anyone who attended a yeshiva.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)
