The Saga Of Rahm
by Big Dog on Jan 26, 2011 at 04:09 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 am of two minds here, since I can see both sides of the “residency” argument, and, like BD, if the courts finally decide that he is eligible, then he should run- with one exception- if the courts that decided his eligibility were “coerced”, or “persuaded”, (is THAT the “Chicago Way”?) to decide in his favor, rather than the law itself and unaided deciding in favor, then he should be prosecuted for trying to buy the favor of the court.
Absent that, then he should run- after all, as BD has pointed out, it won’t be the first time Chicago has been “raped” by a thug.
Since judges in the Chicago area are elected, rather than appointed, it was going to be a done deal that Rahm would receive the OK to run- so Chi-town gets the government they deserve- what else is new?