I’ve been busy and haven’t read all of the arguments – But my instinct is that – unless the city plans to survive on federal handouts (??? hmmm), why have a mayor who’s attuned to Washington instead of Chicago?

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM

That’s what I think, here comes a Chicago bailout.

There is smoke, ergo Fire.

Who is John Galt on January 25, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Prove me wrong, anyone, someone, or we’ve passed the tipping point and are already a Banana Republic.

To be selfish here:

The personal sense of vindication in having been aware of the facts for 2 years that are going to totally paralyze America in the run-up to 2012 when they finally break loose of their own dead weight, is going to be very comforting repayment for the abuse I have taken for simply following the facts rationally and realizing that Obama has never been shown eligible for his office, and has taken drastic legal measures to hide his information, and has been aided and abetted by “anti-’birthers’” who have refused to honestly address Obama’s deception, will be undercut by the heartsick dread of the utter chaos that is going to erupt when it becomes evident that Obama is an illegal president and everything he signed is legally invalid.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I feel the same way, and have been (blog-wise) beat up for following obvious logic? Why spend millions to hide (nothing to hide)? It fails the basic test of Occam’s Razor, and it offends my basic of values of sensibility and propriety.

There is smoke, ergo Fire.

in the first paragraph, :

**NO** rule -municipal, state, federal OR CONSTITUTIONAL will be allowed to stand between the chosen Power-mongers and the POWER.

PIMF!

What is the difference between the Founders wanting a president to have true-blue citizen parents – so as to ensure a republic-preserving inculcation of values, and the Chicago Mafia wanting one of their own residents to be Mayor…

Oh wait – that didn’t quite work, did it?

or maybe it will

If Rahm wants to win, he needs to have a group of people standing outside the court shouting “Mayor Carol Moseley Braun”. Scarrrry!!!!

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Her initials are actually CMF-Carol Mostly Fraud.

galvestonian on January 24, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The msm is heavily invested in maintaining the power block that is the abortion industry. They (and those who support them) fit the template of acceptability that the msm puts forth. So, nothing to see here – move along!

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Ditto!!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

The dissent discards the arguments the majority made in statute, and instead seeks to use precedent (even suspect precedent, such as Smith) to overturn what is really very simple and clear statutory language.
Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I’m not a lawyer and don’t even play one on t.v., but – isn’t it common to use precedent? Anyhoo, if the state supreme’s hear this pronto, I betcha they overturn the appellate court’s 2-1 ruling. I’ll eat virtual crow if I’m wrong.

Oy

Rahmmie is right, the voters deserve the chance to vote for who they want, but they have to vote for someone on a list of ELIGIBLE candidates.

Guys — there is no con. All I can say is that Rahm got some poor legal advice.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

LegalZoom is as tricky as TurboTax, evidentally.

Breaking: Court boots Rahm off ballot

Was it because he was not natural born or did he refuse to post his long form birth certificate on the intertubes?

An appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for mayor.

Nevermind. He was deemed not a resident of the State.

He still needs to post his birth certificate on the intertubes and prove he is natural born.

It seems to me it could go either way, and the law should be very clear on what is not allowed otherwise it should favor someone who is clearly trying to obey by owning a home (albiet rented out) and paying income tax they would not otherwise have to pay. To me what is important is not the intent to return, but the intent to comply with a vague law.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

It is the job of judges to say what the law is, not the petitioners. The judges did not weight constitutional considerations because that is not their job in this case. Their job first and foremost is to interpret an existing statute. If the statute can be clearly and consistently interpreted, as in “words mean precisely what they say”, then they are supposed to stop.

In this case, contra your assumption, the rules are not vague. The residency exception clause modifies “electors” (voters) and not candidates. That’s just grammar and logic, not “judicial activism”.

If this logic is unclear to you, perhaps your path in life should not include the legal profession. :)
Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

The dissenting judge’s opinion is also logical.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But not complete. The dissent discards the arguments the majority made in statute, and instead seeks to use precedent (even suspect precedent, such as Smith) to overturn what is really very simple and clear statutory language.

The dissent’s attempt to expand the definition of residency is, to me, muddying the waters. It brings back in the undisputed facts of the case unnecessarily, and imputes motive to the majority in a very unprofessional way. Have a look at page 30 for relevant examples.

I am unimpressed with the dissent for these and other reasons. I think it would be better to have Emanuel as mayor than Mosely-Braun and others — but the rules are very clear.

I don’t have a dog in this race, except that I resent violations of rule of law, especially when things are as clear as the present question.

Again — the argument is that the rules for candidacy are not the same as for participation in an election. Pretty simple, despite the efforts of the dissent.

In other words, the majority agrees that Emanuels’s interpetation has been accepted without comment over many cases. But then they dismiss that with a wave of the hand:

Neither the Board nor the parties have, however, referred us to any supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly addressing this approach.

And from there they proceed to legislate from the bench.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Incorrect. The view has not, indeed, been accepted in any case except Smith v. People, which was superseded, as noted in the text, by future rulings of the supreme court.

If there are instances of people having disobeyed the law not mentioned in this opinion, their actions do not establish law.

This is not a playground, and “fair” means “as established by statute”. No matter how much whining goes on.