You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #26: Actually, the residency requirement doesn't matter in Rahm's case-- [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Actually, the residency requirement doesn't matter in Rahm's case--
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 12:25 AM by msanthrope
The BCEC found that he never lost residency from 1999--not that he had established, or re-established residency recently.

In his recommendation, Morris wrote that the question wasn't whether Emanuel established residency in Illinois in 2010, but whether he abandoned it. Morris said he found no evidence that Emanuel had done so, arguing that "the touchstone of continued residence is the intention of the resident, and not the physical fact of 'having a place to sleep.'"

Morris also noted that Emanuel was born and married in Chicago, owns a home in the city where he still keeps valuable possessions, has an Illinois driver's license and voted in Chicago in every election between 1999 and February 2010.

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1651492465/Emanuel-can-run-...


There's nothing that indicates Judge Ballard will think differently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Rahm objects to family's lives being interrupted to fly to Chicago to prove they live in Chicago. Hannah Bell  Dec-29-10 10:33 PM   #0 
  - I love your title... And I love Chicago... Enjoy...  midnight   Dec-29-10 10:35 PM   #1 
  - fly to Chicago to prove they live in Chicago  DJ13   Dec-29-10 10:36 PM   #2 
  - And I object to Rahm...  madfloridian   Dec-29-10 10:38 PM   #3 
  - Don't we all?  tavalon   Dec-30-10 12:23 AM   # 
     - Hell no  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 12:29 AM   #34 
        - If you don't, he could end up back in DC  tavalon   Dec-30-10 01:44 AM   #63 
           - I don't want him here in Chicago  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 02:43 AM   #78 
              - as bloomberg has shown us during the blizzard, the city & its services exist for the rich,  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 03:15 AM   #83 
                 - I'm guessing you haven't updated your profile in a while?  tavalon   Dec-30-10 03:32 AM   #84 
                    - what does my profile have to do with anything?  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 03:43 AM   #85 
                       - Sorry, I really had no intention of ruffling your feathers  tavalon   Dec-30-10 04:50 AM   #86 
                          - my feathers aren't ruffled. just had no idea what you were talking about.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 05:18 AM   #87 
                             - I clearly misunderstood  tavalon   Dec-30-10 06:09 AM   #88 
                                - oh i thought *you* were from chicago. my, this is a comedy of miscommunication.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 06:14 AM   #89 
                                   - Hey, we should hit a lladros some time :)  tavalon   Dec-30-10 06:45 AM   #90 
  - Bulletin : Hubble Telescope photographs Rahm's balls from space  bullwinkle428   Dec-29-10 10:51 PM   #4 
  - Are you sure that they didn't use an electron microscope instead  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 02:45 AM   #79 
  - I blame Rahm for ruining the Obama presidency  Aleric   Dec-29-10 11:04 PM   #5 
  - You know what they say...  Truth2Tell   Dec-30-10 12:11 AM   #25 
  - I doubt Obama is so weak that anyone could turn him into something he isn't. nt  Liquorice   Dec-30-10 01:28 AM   #55 
  - And there is the painful truth of it all.  Aleric   Dec-30-10 09:22 AM   #92 
  - Without Rahm....  bvar22   Dec-30-10 11:57 AM   #93 
  - What's up? Is this bash Rahm night?  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:10 PM   #6 
  - it says nothing of the sort, but thanks for playing.  Hannah Bell   Dec-29-10 11:23 PM   #7 
  - Really? the newspaper articles I've read don't say that...  hlthe2b   Dec-29-10 11:30 PM   #9 
  - do you? and don't you wonder why he changed his tax filing after he decided to run?  Hannah Bell   Dec-29-10 11:43 PM   #12 
     - See comment #10. And btw, Rahm won the residency case. So, this issue is moot n/t  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:46 PM   #13 
     - not moot, it's going to be challenged in court. There was no "case".  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:00 AM   #19 
     - Heavens.. there is no need to be rude.. I was asking a question.  hlthe2b   Dec-30-10 12:00 AM   #20 
        - The simple answer is that there's a one-year residency requirement and no exemption for serving the  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:35 AM   #37 
           - Rahm can only win with fixed elections  molly77   Dec-30-10 01:14 AM   #48 
           - In Chicago? We know he can. Ruled for over 100 years by a few ruling-class  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:18 AM   #50 
           - Um--the objector's lawyer CONCEDES that an exemption DOES exist.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:39 AM   #62 
  - Yes, the Illinois law does say so, see below  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:34 PM   #10 
  - we're not debating voting requirements, but requirements to hold office.  Hannah Bell   Dec-29-10 11:47 PM   #14 
     - We are talking about 'residency' read the code. End of story. n/t  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:48 PM   #15 
     - i read the code. it's about voting residency (30 days) & the fact that leaving  Hannah Bell   Dec-29-10 11:59 PM   #18 
        - And leaving the state to serve the president doesn't affect residency status either. n/t  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 12:04 AM   #22 
           - please show me the section about leaving for two years to work for the president.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:23 AM   #29 
     - You apparently did not read the other link you posted  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:56 PM   #17 
        - That applies to military service and elected office  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 12:37 AM   #38 
        - Thatnks, but I'll take Abner Mikva's legal opinion on that law over yours.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 12:57 AM   #43 
           - no surprise there. but you still haven't shown me the "express" law.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:01 AM   #45 
              - I did--downthread. Further, the objector's lawyer completely disagrees with you.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:33 AM   #56 
        - Show me the law. If it's so "express" it ought to be easy. It's certainly  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:43 AM   #39 
           - Dude--it's been cited to you, and the objector's lawyer CONCEDES that the law exists.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:35 AM   #57 
  - A person's residency is not affected when out of state serving the president  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 12:01 AM   #21 
     - regarding voting status. and the law you cite about voting (30 day residency requirement)  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:07 AM   #24 
        - Actually, the residency requirement doesn't matter in Rahm's case--  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 12:19 AM   #26 
        - The notoriously corrupt BCEC can make any bullshit ruling it likes. We  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:29 AM   #32 
        - You're ignoring the law that protects residency of folks serving the president.  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 12:27 AM   #30 
           - There is no such law. That's why I'm "ignoring" it. It doesn't exist.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:30 AM   #35 
              - Here's reference to said law, from the link you helpfully gave....  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 12:46 AM   #40 
                 - if there was such an "express" law, you could link me to it. there isn't, & you can't.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:56 AM   #42 
                    - Here.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:23 AM   #53 
                       - That is about voting residency (30 days requirement) & voting rights.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:38 AM   #61 
                          - OMFG--the objector's own lawyer doesn't agree with you, Hannah.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:44 AM   #64 
                             - The state election code contains such a provision - but it references the rights of ELECTORS, i.e.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 02:01 AM   #69 
                                - You should totally get in touch with the objector's attorney, and tell him he's doing it wrong. n/t  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 02:06 AM   #71 
                                   - i have no idea what legal points the objector's attorney cited.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 02:16 AM   #73 
                                      - You've been given the law. You've been given the ruling. If you refuse to understand,  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 02:20 AM   #75 
  - I think you are right on that score... I've no "dog" in this fight...  hlthe2b   Dec-29-10 11:29 PM   #8 
  - See comment #10 for the link to the Illinois code.  Tx4obama   Dec-29-10 11:36 PM   #11 
     - That's a link to the 30-day residency requirement for voters.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:50 AM   #41 
     - I certainly hope his opponents file lawsuits against him.  JVS   Dec-30-10 01:03 AM   #46 
     - The objector's lawyer CONCEDES that the law exists...only Hannah disputes its existence.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:38 AM   #59 
        - The code does not define residency; but precedent defines it as physical & tax residency,  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:50 AM   #67 
           - Well, when you've stooped to correcting spelling, then I know you've conceded.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:59 AM   #68 
              - lol. says the person who has repeatedly said i can't spell, can't write, can't do math,  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 02:07 AM   #72 
  - Wow you must have read some Illinois law that I haven't heard of!  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 12:34 AM   #36 
  - Try again. Rahm was/is a resident, he never lost his residency.  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 01:23 AM   #54 
     - He gave it up when he rented out his house.  Chisox08   Dec-30-10 01:38 AM   #60 
        - Under your rubric, only homeowners can vote, then? What about the homeless? n/t  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 12:14 PM   #94 
  - It's always bash Rahm night here.  tavalon   Dec-30-10 01:45 AM   #65 
  - LOL  EFerrari   Dec-29-10 11:50 PM   #16 
  - Is this like your 3rd thread on Rahm in 24 hours???  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 12:04 AM   #23 
  - Is this like your 400th comment on one of my threads in 8 hours, minus  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:07 AM   #47 
  - K&R & ROTFLMAO! Don't you just love politicians?  Mimosa   Dec-30-10 12:21 AM   #27 
  - Are you moving to Chicago to vote in the election?  prolesunited   Dec-30-10 12:22 AM   #28 
  - Nah, only his dead relatives are moving to Chicago. n/t  tuckessee   Dec-30-10 12:29 AM   #33 
  - evil never sleeps, you know, mr. "prolesunited".  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 12:59 AM   #44 
  - It would probably be a lot more convenient if they actually lived in Chicago.  JVS   Dec-30-10 12:28 AM   #31 
  - Bush Cheney and the gang made up rules and laws as they  molly77   Dec-30-10 01:19 AM   #51 
  - Page 31, #74  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 01:15 AM   #49 
  - you were going to bed, remember? guess it must have kept nagging at you, lol.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 01:22 AM   #52 
     - I gave you the link to the ruling and the page number.  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 01:37 AM   #58 
        - The objector's lawyer CONCEDES that the law exists...only Hannah disputes its existence.  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 01:47 AM   #66 
           - There was another case that set precedent.  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 02:06 AM   #70 
              - Don't you just LOVE Duer's taking the side of a Bush recount attorney?  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 02:18 AM   #74 
                 - Gee, you just told me my interpretation of the law was different from Odelson's --  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 02:23 AM   #76 
                 - Oh my goodness  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 02:42 AM   #77 
                    - *you* may have no intention of disparaging me, but i assure you, a certain person certainly does.  Hannah Bell   Dec-30-10 02:49 AM   #81 
                 - Well this is a HOOT  Tx4obama   Dec-30-10 03:09 AM   #82 
                    - That is a hoot. So is this thread. n/t  msanthrope   Dec-30-10 09:13 AM   #91 
  - Simple answer  Sherman A1   Dec-30-10 02:48 AM   #80 
  - Poor Rahm. n/t  AngryOldDem   Dec-30-10 12:32 PM   #95 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC