The Saga Of Rahm
Jan 26, 2011 Political
Rahm Emanuel is trying to become the Mayor of Chicago so that he can take the place of the retiring thug who is cashing out. One thug will replace another in the nation’s most corrupt city. There is one sticking point and that is, is Emanuel eligible to run?
There are two interpretations of the statute and though I agree with the interpretation that he had to reside in the city for the year prior, there are others who disagree. The court made a compelling argument for the “you must physically live here” interpretation because it is defined separately from the residency requirements of voters.
The statute allows exceptions but it would appear as if Emanuel does not fit into one of the categories, at least as far as the court is concerned.
I am indifferent because I do not live in Chicago. I think that if the law’s definition of residency means you can be out of the state and still be eligible then Emanuel certainly should be allowed to run. He pays taxes there and he votes there so if this is the intent of the law then he has every right to run.
If the meaning of the law is that he had to actually be living there in order to run then he should not be allowed to. It appears as if this was the intent since the rules for voting and the rules for running are spelled out separately and it appears as if the words “reside in” mean that he had to be living there. This is different than having residency.
Many military members maintain their state residency when away serving but they are not residing in the state. States want you to remain a resident so they can tax you while you are away. Be that as it may, there is a difference between residency status and residing in. If you travel overseas you are still a citizen (resident) of the US but you are not residing in the US.
And I think that is the interpretation that the court applied because those terms appear to be spelled out that way.
However, this will ultimately be settled by the courts and if they decide that Emanuel meets the residing in definition then he should be allowed to run.
Of course, this is Chicago and it is likely that Emanuel will be allowed to run even if there is a hundred pages of notes attached to the law saying that he had to actually live there.
As I said, I have no dog in this race. Even though I don’t care for the guy I think that if he meets the criteria then he should be allowed to run.
I also think if they decide he does not then he should not be allowed to run.
And that means he does not get special favors because he is Obama’s buddy or because the people like him.
Then again, who am I kidding. This is Chicago…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: chicago, corruption, laws, mayor, rahm emanuel
I Thought It Was Illegal To Fire US Attorneys
Dec 1, 2008 Political
Birmingham Alabama Mayor Larry Langford is in a bit of hot water. He has been indicted by a Grand Jury on charges that he made some shady deals. He is under a federal indictment for Securities and Exchange irregularities and for some shady county bond deals.
Alice Martin, the US Attorney for the area, has been working on this for some time and those close to the issue say it is not a surprise. The Langford people maintain that he did nothing wrong and that this will all work out. His attorney tried to have the federal case thrown out because he claims that the prosecutor failed to make a connection between payments to Langford by his friends and the millions of dollars in government business. Others involved are Al LaPierre and Bill Blount. The mayor’s chief of staff released this statement:
“As you know, the Mayor was detained this morning by federal authorities. We do not know the details of his detention at this time. City business will go on as usual as we are all here to do a job and we’ll continue to do our jobs to ensure we deliver the best services to the taxpayers of Birmingham. This is certainly no surprise to us — we anticipated something happening soon especially knowing Alice Martin’s days in office are numbered with the swearing in of a new president in late January — just a little over a month from now. We are glad the mayor will finally have his day in court. As members of his team, we stand behind him and look forward to the day when we can return the focus to the important issues before the city.” [emphasis mine] AL.com
I don’t care about the specifics of the case. A crooked politician is nothing new but the guy is black so we will certainly hear cries of racism. What is intriguing is that the mayor’s office is convinced that Alice Martin will be replaced because a new president is taking office. I had always assumed that the US Attorneys served at the pleasure of the president and that he was allowed to fire them whenever he wanted. Bill Clinton fired all of them [and Republicans charged that it was] to get rid of one who was close to indicting one of the Congressional Democrats (Dan Rostenkowski). But it was his prerogative to fire them.
All of this changed when George Bush fired seven or so of them. It does not matter why he fired them because they serve at his pleasure. He can fire them regardless of the reason. He can fire who he wants, when he wants. But the Democrats saw this differently and made a big stink about it.
They held investigations. They smeared the Attorney General. They accused President Bush of breaking the law because he fired them and then the Democrats continued this mantra for political gain. I think the biggest mistake Bush made in the issue was firing only a few. He should have fired all of them and then no one could make a mountain out of the mole hill.
In any event, Barack Obama would be wise to fire all US Attorneys even if he only wants to replace some of them. You see, if he fires Alice Martin and the case against Langford stalls or ends then he will have done what the Democrats accused Bush of. If he fires them all and hires back most of them then he will have played politics as usual and that is not the change he promised.
US Attorneys supposedly serve at the president’s pleasure but the Democrats redefined the entire relationship when they went after President Bush for firing some of them.
I would not be surprised if Obama fires Martin and Langford walks on all charges. A Grand Jury indicted him and it was not after three were convened. The Grand Jury was not badgered into returning an indictment. Both of these were the case with Tom DeLay and not one Democrat was interested in that because their goal was to get rid of him. His indictment, which has (as far as I am aware) never gone to trial was solely for political gain. But all was well with that case because DeLay is a Republican.
Langford is a Democrat a fact that, as best I can tell, is not disclosed in the article. If anyone can find where they mention his party affiliation I would appreciate it being pointed out (it is mentioned in the comments but not the article).
When it is a Republican in trouble the party affiliation is mentioned a number of times. Maybe the article’s writer assumed that we would know Langford is a Democrat because he is black. If I made that connection I would be viewed as racist…
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: attorney general, birmingham, corruption, firings, langford, mayor, us attorney