• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Emanuel on Chicago mayoral ballot

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The ballot roller coaster for Rahm Emanuel finally stopped Thursday with the former White House chief of staff very much in the race for mayor and the Illinois Supreme Court emphatically rejecting a contentious challenge to his Chicago residency.

Within minutes of the high court ruling, Emanuel was back shaking hands with voters, taking a congratulatory call from his old boss, President Barack Obama, and working to recapture an aura of invincibility he had worked hard to project until an Appellate Court ruling threatened to boot him from the Feb. 22 contest.
Click to expand...

Any speculation on this, folks?

Article is here.
 
Are we shocked? Of course not.

The mob pretty much has its way in Chicago.
 
He obviously wasn't a resident but the legal meaning of words are often different than the dictionary definition, still many on the right will see a conspiracy in this or jump to a conclusion without proof.
 
Wiseone said:
He obviously wasn't a resident but the legal meaning of words are often different than the dictionary definition, still many on the right will see a conspiracy in this or jump to a conclusion without proof.
Click to expand...

You mean, like Blagoyovich, and Obama's senate seat?

Or perhaps, the years of mob-like rule from the Daley clan?

Chicago is, and has always been, the most corrrupt cesspool of politics in the U.S.
 
Wiseone said:
He obviously wasn't a resident but the legal meaning of words are often different than the dictionary definition, still many on the right will see a conspiracy in this or jump to a conclusion without proof.
Click to expand...

There has been a legal definition for a long time. Chicago has a residency requirement for city of chicago emplyoees (police, fire fighters, teachers, etc) that requires them to reside in the city. Many have been fired in the past 50 years because they were found to be breaking that requirement by living in the burbs. This, even though many, have maintained property and paid taxes in Chicago.

I think this decision opened up a big can of worms (as indicated by the 2 concurring judges) and the city will see multiple lawsuits by the unions, based on this decision, to get ex employees reinstated.

No one knows yet, but I believe the chances are good that the challenge to Rahm's residency was funded by the unions specifically to give them a way to fight the firings of their members for living outside of hte city.
 
Erod said:
You mean, like Blagoyovich, and Obama's senate seat?

Or perhaps, the years of mob-like rule from the Daley clan?

Chicago is, and has always been, the most corrrupt cesspool of politics in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I note that Illinois is far from the most corrupt state of the union. If Il. is a corrupt cesspool, then what would you call Florida, DC and Rhode Island?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/weekinreview/14marsh.html
 
Erod said:
You mean, like Blagoyovich, and Obama's senate seat?

Or perhaps, the years of mob-like rule from the Daley clan?

Chicago is, and has always been, the most corrrupt cesspool of politics in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Chicago is a corrupt place, but I still like to see evidence of it other than a ruling I disagree with.
 
Wiseone said:
Chicago is a corrupt place, but I still like to see evidence of it other than a ruling I disagree with.
Click to expand...

If he loses, you can count the dead bodies.
 
Erod said:
You mean, like Blagoyovich, and Obama's senate seat?

Or perhaps, the years of mob-like rule from the Daley clan?

Chicago is, and has always been, the most corrrupt cesspool of politics in the U.S.
Click to expand...

D.C. is the most. Chicago is a close second.
 
Erod said:
Are we shocked? Of course not.

The mob pretty much has its way in Chicago.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure. I have just located the Supreme Court decision. According to that decision, Rahm took a job in Washington, and moved there temporarily with the intent of moving back to Chicago. Their decision is based on an 1867 Supreme Court case that is quoted as settled law. Factors which show that Rahm had no intent in giving up his Chicago residency are:

1) He continued to pay property taxes on his Chicago residence.

2) He continued to hold an Illinois driver's license.

3) He continued to list his Illinois address on his personal checks.

4) He continued to pay Illinois state income tax.

That this was a unanimous decision, which even the 3 Republican judges are in agreement with, speaks for itself. I am not an Obama fan, but attempting to leverage political points on this, knowing the nature of the Illinois Supreme Court decision, is dishonest. Of course, we are talking about "politics" here, which is pretty much interchangeable with the word "dishonest". LOL.

Supreme Court decision, in PDF format, is here.

Political makeup of Illinois Supreme Court is documented here (4 Democrats and 3 Republicans)

Of course, Rush Limbaugh is going to have a field day with this, but since he is an idiot, it is understandable. LOL.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
I am not so sure. I have just located the Supreme Court decision. According to that decision, Rahm took a job in Washington, and moved there temporarily with the intent of moving back to Chicago. Their decision is based on an 1867 Supreme Court case that is quoted as settled law. Factors which show that Rahm had no intent in giving up his Chicago residency are:

1) He continued to pay property taxes on his Chicago residence.

2) He continued to hold an Illinois driver's license.

3) He continued to list his Illinois address on his personal checks.

4) He continued to pay Illinois state income tax.

That this was a unanimous decision, which even the 3 Republican judges are in agreement with, speaks for itself. I am not an Obama fan, but attempting to leverage political points on this, knowing the nature of the Illinois Supreme Court decision, is dishonest. Of course, we are talking about "politics" here, which is pretty much interchangeable with the word "dishonest". LOL.

Supreme Court decision, in PDF format, is here.

Political makeup of Illinois Supreme Court is documented here (4 Democrats and 3 Republicans)

Of course, Rush Limbaugh is going to have a field day with this, but since he is an idiot, it is understandable. LOL.
Click to expand...

I thought the key word was "reside". Was his time in the administration just an extended two-year business trip?
 
Erod said:
I thought the key word was "reside". Was his time in the administration just an extended two-year business trip?
Click to expand...

Again, the 1867 case that is settled law is the case that the Illinois Supremes used. In that case, a man moved to Tennessee, intending to return to Illinois. That case was ruled in his favor, and he was declared an Illinois resident.

Also, your use of the word "reside" is in a context that is somewhat limited in scope. If that were actually true, then I know of several people who left Houston to work on the Alaska pipeline, who would have had their Texas citizenship stripped from them.
 
Erod said:
I thought the key word was "reside". Was his time in the administration just an extended two-year business trip?
Click to expand...

I think it is viewed as service to country. Just as we would not say that a soldier in Iraq from Chicago gave-up his/her citizenship by going to Iraq.
 
Well hell even the Bears at time can win one. As for the topic, I know that it is a bit different with me being in school, but I am still a legal resident of South Carolina, even though I spent only a month a home a year.
 
Erod said:
I thought the key word was "reside". Was his time in the administration just an extended two-year business trip?
Click to expand...

Define "reside?"
If you go on vacation to the bahamas for two weeks, are you no longer a resident of Chicago?
How about for the whole winter? It's a cold city in winter.
Where's the line that makes one no longer a resident? How many days do you have to be gone? Isn't any such number going to be purely arbitrary?
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Again, the 1867 case that is settled law is the case that the Illinois Supremes used. In that case, a man moved to Tennessee, intending to return to Illinois. That case was ruled in his favor, and he was declared an Illinois resident.

Also, your use of the word "reside" is in a context that is somewhat limited in scope. If that were actually true, then I know of several people who left Houston to work on the Alaska pipeline, who would have had their Texas citizenship stripped from them.
Click to expand...

You can't be a "citizen" of Texas. You can only be a resident. Citizenship is based on country, not state. (But I know what you meant)

What's to prevent a politician from buying a house in every state, and running for mayor where he thinks he has the best chance?
 
Deuce said:
Define "reside?"
If you go on vacation to the bahamas for two weeks, are you no longer a resident of Chicago?
How about for the whole winter? It's a cold city in winter.
Where's the line that makes one no longer a resident? How many days do you have to be gone? Isn't any such number going to be purely arbitrary?
Click to expand...

So if I buy houses in Illinois, New York, Florida, and Texas, but I spend nine months out of the year in Hawaii, can I run for mayor in Chicago, NYC, Miami, and Dallas?
 
Wiseone said:
He obviously wasn't a resident but the legal meaning of words are often different than the dictionary definition, still many on the right will see a conspiracy in this or jump to a conclusion without proof.
Click to expand...

Plenty of precedent for this. A soldier serving in Iraq is not required to keep his vacant apartment in Chicago in order to keep his residency. Serving in Iraq? Serving in the White House. No difference.

Rahm should not have to leave his house vacant and let it go into foreclosure in order to keep his residency. Predictable decision.
 
Erod said:
So if I buy houses in Illinois, New York, Florida, and Texas, but I spend nine months out of the year in Hawaii, can I run for mayor in Chicago, NYC, Miami, and Dallas?
Click to expand...

Presumably a court would look at the same sort of thing that the Illinois court did to try and determine what your "primary" or "intended" residence is and make a decision based on the best information they have.

A house you bought but rarely set foot in? Probably not going to convince them.
 
Nothing new here. Partisan bickering blasting anyone associated with Obama and ignoring the facts. Moving on.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Nothing new here. Partisan bickering blasting anyone associated with Obama and ignoring the facts. Moving on.
Click to expand...

As stated, there will be Unions that will find this interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom