Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MarcusTulliusCicero; steve-b
In other words, even though he satisfies the legal requirements, we're still going to try to make an issue of a non-issue.

By their standards, hardly any members of Congress could be considered residents of their states.

13 posted on 05/26/2006 2:23:08 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Paleo Conservative

Interestingly, this was one of the key issues in Tom Daschle's defeat in 2004. He had qualified for a property tax exemption on his home in the District of Columbia by claiming that it was his permanent, full-time residence, and the folks back in South Dakota didn't look too kindly on it. For one thing, it called into question whether Daschle was legally qualified to represent South Dakota if his "permanent residence" was in D.C.


15 posted on 05/26/2006 2:40:26 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Paleo Conservative

Yes. The obvious solution is to reduce the number of days Congress is in session. When they're not meeting they can't damage the country as much as they did yesterday!


16 posted on 05/26/2006 2:47:06 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson