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

Skip to comments.

Court orders Emanuel off mayoral ballot
Chicago Tribune ^ | Jan. 24, 2011 | Kristen Mack

Posted on 01/24/2011 12:36:14 PM PST by Cincinatus

Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot because he does not meet the residency standard, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today.

Emanuel told a news conference he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and would ask for an injunction so his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.

"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity."

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chicago; mayor; mob; politics
Those judges better be careful turning their car ignitions tonight...
1 posted on 01/24/2011 12:36:17 PM PST by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

It depends what the definition of “resident” is. Could be interpreted to mean “left at least one suitcase in town for a year”


2 posted on 01/24/2011 12:40:30 PM PST by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

That judge will find a suitcase full of cash and a threat, then all will be cozy for Rahm.


3 posted on 01/24/2011 12:46:11 PM PST by freebird5850 (It ain't about where he was born, it's about dual citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Court orders Emanuel off mayoral ballot-

Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot

because he does not meet the Rat-Hole residency standard,

according to a ruling issued by

the State of Illlinois Pest and Vermin Control Board today.

4 posted on 01/24/2011 12:46:46 PM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal
Totally.

The court could rule so tight that if any candidate had LEFT THE CITY for even 1 second during the preceding year he or she could not be on the ballot.

Might be time for the courts to put Chicago to the test regarding their open ended law on residency of candidates.

5 posted on 01/24/2011 12:46:49 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

If we could only have this same disappointment fall upon his old boss.


6 posted on 01/24/2011 12:48:31 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

How’s this for clarity, RAHM!


7 posted on 01/24/2011 12:50:59 PM PST by ChocChipCookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

Meh.
Either way, Chicago is going to get the mayor it so richly deserves.


8 posted on 01/24/2011 1:01:42 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
IF the court can make this stick it sets a precedent for the next presidential election.

Expect near infinite pressure from the White House on this one.

9 posted on 01/24/2011 1:08:01 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 734 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

“I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort,” Emanuel said.”

Of course he will. It’s just a matter of getting the right judges...


10 posted on 01/24/2011 1:09:36 PM PST by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

You’re absolutely right. This leaves the field open for Carol Mostly-Fraud.


11 posted on 01/24/2011 1:11:37 PM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ChocChipCookie

More clarity....R AH M...


12 posted on 01/24/2011 1:14:22 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

I guess those judges don’t have a union card? Seriously they need to watch their backs for quite a while.


13 posted on 01/24/2011 1:16:26 PM PST by vpintheak (Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
He moved himself and his family out of the state of Chicago to take a job.

He didn't commute...He left Chicago....even rented out his former house...He simply hasn't been residing in Chicago for the past year.

Had his wife and kids remained in Chicago and he was commuting....whole different story...

He was a landlord, not a resident.

14 posted on 01/24/2011 1:21:47 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

Sounds like Carol Moseley Braun has been consulting with a community organizer.


15 posted on 01/24/2011 1:23:22 PM PST by RoadKingSE (How do you know that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a muzzle flash ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Big whoops....Chicago is not a state!!! Oh my...

But I suppose it could be the 57th state...

16 posted on 01/24/2011 1:23:30 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

The people of Chicago got a short reprieve. This guy has too many corrupt connections not to get his own way. Poster child for what has gone wrong in the USA with cronyism and corruption and special rules for connected political hacks. The career path is either to get political connections first and then go rip off the system, or vice versa and rip it off twice.

We need pols that get into the political system to serve the public short term and then get out. They are few and far between.


17 posted on 01/24/2011 1:26:03 PM PST by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It's a state (not city) law and the elements are pretty specific.
Should be interesting. I’m guessing the IL. Supremes (if they take it) affirm the ruling.
18 posted on 01/24/2011 1:31:45 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

So, a candidate drives outside of Chicago for a half an hour to visit a Wal-Mart. Does that mean he broke his one year residency?


19 posted on 01/24/2011 1:40:22 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

Of course his “budds” have put all of the Supreme Court justices in their jobs, so little Rahm has no worries.


20 posted on 01/24/2011 2:02:15 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

To “reside in” means exactly that. Not only did he have to have a residence, but he was to “reside in” the City that he was running for office.

Taking a 2 night trip to another State does not break the “reside in” rule but renting out your residence and “residing” elsewhere does.

The ruling is pretty straight forward and only 42 pages long. You should read it.


21 posted on 01/24/2011 2:31:09 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

Well, I guess we’ll see how honest the Illinois SC really is.


22 posted on 01/24/2011 2:32:27 PM PST by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Watch this: Chicago Reporters Work as Rahm's Press Thugs; Threaten Reporter Asking Tough Questions (3 minute video)
23 posted on 01/24/2011 2:39:19 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Nice try. Not even close.
It’s about where he resides, i.e lives, hangs his hat, or as the law describes “resides in” for the year next preceding the election.

Nor does he qualify under the exception. The exception is is for those in the military. Rahm doesn’t qualify here, either.

If I decide to serve the United States in some other capacity, for 18 months, let’s say, the TSA at Denver Airport, am I still a resident of Illinois ?


24 posted on 01/24/2011 3:06:32 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
"Residence" is a legal term. When I was first hired by the government I moved to the DC area. I maintained my legal residence in Indiana. When I went into the Army I continued to maintain my legal residence in Indiana. When I got out of the Army I continued to maintain my legal residence in Indiana yet relocated to Virginia to go back to work at my old job.

I was eventually convinced I had to change my residence to Indiana lest the US Army assign me to a vacancy in an Indiana Guard unit. Drill weekends would have been miserable ~ making a 600 mile drive each way.

Of note, that position was one of the ones available for ordinary NG enlistees in Indiana at the time ~ including DAN QUAYLE.

I never owned a house in Indiana, and didn't actually live there from about June 1966 through to 1971 ~ yet, I voted, paid income tax there, and kept my drivers license.

It didn't matter what Indiana law said either ~ there are federal laws that allowed for this.

It was much more common in the past, then a bunch of Democrat refugees moved to the state and raised taxes making Virginia more "convenient" anyway.

Rahm was Chief of Staff for the President of the United States ~ and the city of Chicago imagines that it's piddly little laws regarding domicile should take precedent over the needs of the entire United States for Rahm's services ~ or the services of any other Chicago resident.

I think it's a civil rights problem that will eventually be ruled in Rahm's favor.

25 posted on 01/24/2011 8:36:02 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

It’s a ruling made by an Illinois state court regarding a federal matter. I’ll read it when we run out of toilet paper.


26 posted on 01/24/2011 8:37:24 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Actually, the legal term in this Illinois law is “resides in, not residence.

Again, it's not a city law, it's a state law. And the exception in Illinois IS for military only.

Being COS of the POTUS is not an exception.

Your personal experience is great but is not relevant and not the same as Rahm’s case.

so what's your point, again ?

If the law is unfair, change the law, otherwise, enforce it.

FreepRegards

27 posted on 01/24/2011 9:03:31 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
The decision is as bad as anyone could imagine. It rests on WEBSTER's dictionary definition of "live" as in "live in" ~ GAD!

Then, it goes further and lays the case on a concept of "...... shall themselves be component parts of such units......" which runs smack dab into the 14th amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause ~ to wit: "..... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....."

What that means is that Rahm Emanuel's rights, as far as this court is concerned, depend entirely on whether or not he can get Justice Thomas to convince FOUR OTHER JUSTICES that he, Rahm, met the requirement of "residing in" Chicago as meant by not just Illinois law, but but also by a hard-core Conservative.

Let me suggest that Rahm Wins!

And I thought you said don't bother bringing popcorn ~ this one is a slam-dunk!

28 posted on 01/25/2011 4:02:56 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Your last post makes no sense whatsoever. Go back to sleep, Rahm.


29 posted on 01/25/2011 4:23:47 AM PST by RightFighter (Now back to my war station.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

How is it a federal matter? It’s about the eligibility of someone to run for office in the State.


30 posted on 01/25/2011 5:29:51 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

The 14th Amendment makes it a FEDERAL MATTER. I’m sure Justice Thomas will have no trouble at all with this ~ but it’s the old biddies on the court who will be a problem.


31 posted on 01/25/2011 5:34:57 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No it doesn’t. Each State can set their own requirements for eligibility of elected office within their State.

If they had tried to impose extra eligibility on someone serving in Congress, you would be correct.

Requiring that a person has both a residence and that they reside in the city that they are running for mayor of for one year prior to the election is not a violation of the 14th amendment.

This is not a federal issue. The Illinois Supreme Court is as high as it can possibly go.


32 posted on 01/25/2011 5:40:01 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

how is SCOTUS involved in this ?


33 posted on 01/25/2011 6:44:20 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The most conservative candidate, in that race, is Fred White, a write-in candidate. He wants to cut the salaries of the mayor and council members by 30%. He’s pro-gun rights and anti-illegal alien. Including write-in candidates, the race has 13 candidates. Please read Fred’s site, www.fredrick-k-white.com.


34 posted on 01/25/2011 9:00:44 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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