Chicago's strict residential law clearly states the anyone running for Chicago public office must have a physical presence as a resident within the city limits for 1 year prior to having their name placed on the ballot for an election.
The IL Supreme Court decision is shaping up to be an election nightmare, just like the 2000 Presidential election of Bush vs. Gore, when the Florida Supreme Court order a continuation of the recount be on the state law of 30 day requirement to submit election results.
By ordering Emanuel’s name on the ballot, the IL Supreme Court over ruled the law, which they cannot do. They can only strike down the law or uphold it.
US Supreme Court, here they come.
--------------------------------Update (with Video)-----------------------------
Large protest in Chicago last night after the appellate court rules Emanuel can not run on the ballot.
The last guy in this video GETS IT!
The rest seem to be OK that laws are OK to break!
(h/t to Rebel Pundit )
14 comments:
This comes down to law. If it doesn't go the leftiest way they will not except it.
Yes Chris, absolutely!
For this situation, let's use the analogy the left has used on the U.S. Constitution.
"The framers of Chicago's election laws could not have forseen this situation when they put the residency standard in the laws"!
"I mean, come on now, he went to work for Obama, so the residency law doesn't apply here".
"Laws are like a living breathing document that are open to interpretation and change."
(by the way, should anyone want to know where those quotes come from, don't bother 'researching' them to find out just what 'context' they are in or to find out what I 'meant', because... I made them up, as they are my interpreation of a left minded protestor. Oops, sorry, being 'partisan' again. Please forgive me, I'm trying to be a good blog writer!)
(In case you missed it, that was 'meant' to be sarcasm with a splash of humor.)
What Rahm wants, Rahm is gonna get. No state bailouts!
Well, the questions is...Is the law correct under the State and Federal constitution?
And Mark they didn't overrule the law. Thats factually incorrect. They issued a stay. Either stop printing or keep his name on it until a decision is reached. That is not overruling the law.
As for Florida, i am amazed at the Conservative take on the recount. Amazed. Shouldn't the will of the people take precedence over arbitrary election law? Of course if you believe that the constitution doesn't protect your franchise then you would believe that the law trumps it, but i don't believe that.
And in the case of Rahm i am inclined to believe that he was always a continuous resident of Chicago who went away for State business. I would be inclined to give a republican candidate the same treatment. Given the evidence of his intent to never change his residency and the nature of his eventual return to his home, i feel he qualifies.
I'm sure that the partisan Rahm haters here will disagree.
Joe, read the order on the link above.
"ordered election officials not to print any ballots without his name."
There was no choice, as you have claimed.
It ruled that they cannot print the ballots without his name on it.
The law states to be eligible to run for public office for the City of Chicago, one must have lived in the city for one full year prior to the election.
He has a home in the city but he was not living in it for one year prior to the Feb 22 election. Once you rent that house out, as he did, it is NOT your residence, it's considered an investment property as long as you rent it out. AND it was taxed as such.
IF he had just left it vacant, then he could claim residency.
The Judge order his name on the ballot and overruled the law. A judge cannot re-write law, only interpret it.
That’s what happened in Florida. The Judge there over ruled the law, effectively re-writing the law.
Tell me about it Captain. But in this casde, looks as if Quinn fast tracked it, and 'bailed him out'
Mark,
Your more thoughtful than that last argument. Why even begin to go down that road. Its such a juvenile way of looking at things. You know how courts work and whats going on. This isn't grade school government class.
I've read the stay and your being a partisan Rahm hater brother. The stay is warranted because they are going to look at it.
"The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.
They could not print ballots. They have a choice.
JUVENILE?
You call common sense JUVENILE?
Holy fu*k.
What part of residence to you not understand?
The act or fact of residing, abiding, or dwelling in a place for some continuance of time.
He was not.
Doesn't matter anyways, the liberal activist judges of the IL SC let him stay on, because it's pretty obvious no one on the left gives a rats ass about the LAW or the words thereof.
Fucking morons anyways.
Mark,
I called your postings about the "Stay" juvenile.
And it wasn't common sense. I found it uncommon and lacking sense of any kind. Your usually much more thoughtful and logical about these things understanding how things work and why. I think your dislike of anyone tied to the Obama admin clouded your thought process.
As for the liberal activism of the court, i found it strange that you would use that term, given it was a Unanimous decision which included 3 republican judges. Adding to that was the fact that three Republicans all former elected officials and 2 former Attorney Generals all indicated public support for his case.
http://www.sj-r.com/letters/x1235864752/Letter-Illinois-Supreme-Court-should-rule-that-Emanuel-is-a-resident
In fact the majority opinion was written by a REPUBLICAN. So much for liberal activism.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf
Joe, those "Republicans" are RINO’s and suck up to the left as do the Democrats.
So now that this court is ruled he can remain on the ballot there is no ‘stay’ and the IL SC has cleared the way for anyone to violate the established law.
All because they refuses to take the word Residence seriously.
Here, if you own a home, but do not live in it and rent it out, it is not legally considered your residence but your investment property and taxed as such (much higher rate) There for the local municipality, County and the State consider it not YOUR residence.
The IL SC ignores this and based its decision on 'intent' to remain a citizen.
But, that’s Chicago style politics, also being played out in our nation’s Capital.
Mark, I love how you can call Republicans rino's when you disagree with their decisions. When is there a real republican?
But back to the decision of the court. Did you read it?
The facts concerning the decision are logical and seem to me to be correct. Even the appeals court did not dismiss the evidence of intent to reside, but only misjudged the legal precedence of "reside". They essentially became "activists" by ignoring previous Court decisions.
Your personal argument not withstanding, which i don't think was ever up for debate or even mentioned as far as i can tell, the ruling is a correct one that is steeped in thoughtful judicial prudence. Perhaps you should have wrote a brief concerning your point of debate. You are a Chicago citizen right?
Given the amounts of case law and prior Il SC decisions that supports its claim in the opinion i am loathe to consider it judicial activism nor the Republican a Rino for not siding with the appellate court. Clearly the supreme court was correct in its decision and your dislike of Rahm doesn't change that.
Now if you had any points that would negate the standards used by the court outside of taxation of property i would love to hear them. I am always willing to listen and debate.
Joe, it's a double standard. Something quite expectable with those of the left.
The state, county and city both recognize the difference between investment and residency.
But to be placed on the ballot for election the judicial system uses a double standard.
One for $$$, the other to negate the law.
You'd be surprised and how many here agree that though they like DeadFish, the courts got it wrong.
Mark, I'm sure that plenty of people think like you, but that doesn't make it correct. Why are you so hung up on that issue?
Can you set aside your beliefs and discuss the Supreme Courts decision on its own merits or not?
Joe, it’s not a belief when there is a double standard being applied by the government, legislatively and judicially.
Why am I hung up on this?
Because far too long in this area the laws have been bent to suit those with some sort of power and persuasion.
For the last time:
One, the STATE, LEGALLY, sees his home as an investment based on that he rented it out.
LEGALLY (by law) it can't be considered as a place of residency because LEGALLY he does not live on his property.
Second, the courts (which are suppose to uphold or strike down the law) look at it as intent to return to his property.
Double Standard.
No ordinary citizens can get away with this.
Post a Comment