Rahm Emanuel Kicked off of the Chicago Ballot

It doesn't matter what the people want if he isn't eligible to run in the first place..... It's called The Law.....

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
This will be moved up to the next court.

But I want all of you who are happy about this to give your opinion on this. Here is the latest poll data, from a story about this case:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

According to a recent Chicago Tribune/WGN survey, 44 percent of the city's voters backed Emanuel, 21 percent backed former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and 16 percent backed former Chicago Board of Education president Gery Chico. City Clerk Miguel del Valle received seven percent and nine percent remained undecided.

Emanuel is far ahead of everyone else...obvious that he is the people of Chicago's choice.

So are you guys telling me that you would like to see the will of the people overturned by the courts???

edit on 24-1-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Just found this clip of Rahm after writing out all of his campaign donation refund checks.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you support 2 judges overturning the will of the people???

I support two judges carrying out the law of the land.

That being said .. I'm no lawyer but I think Rahm could argue in his favor and win. Just my lay-person look at the rules and I conclude he's eligible. But this being CHICAGO - the most politically corrupt city in the USA - it looks like he's out of favor with TPTB. I wonder if Obama is answering the phone calls from him or if he's just letting it ring and ring.

Reply to post by ljtg123

I'm not a fan of mob rule. If he's the "peoples choice" he appeals to the lowest common denominator. I do not enjoy being ruled by the lowest common denominator. There is no election I approve of. Every election means I'm about to become the subject of some new idiot riding high on the shoulders of morons.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Let's see, what did Rahm tell us progressives when we wanted a seat at the table for "single payer" or "public option" representatives? I think it was something to the effect that, people don't always get what they want and that we should get over it. Well all I can say to dear old Rahm is that, "what goes around, comes around," so get over it.

IMO, No person who retains dual citizenship should be allowed to hold any political office or be appointed as part of a president's administration, period.

So all of you are ok...as long as the "law" is being upheld...which it was declared by the eleciton board and the circuit court that it was...and overturned here.

Let's look at the requirements....there are two parts. here is the first:

www.ilga.gov...

A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment.

And here is the second which clarifies Section 3.1
www.ilga.gov...

A permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Section 3-1 [which says who's allowed to vote in Illinois]. No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

So...does he own a permanent abode? Yes.

Was he away by reason due to United States business? Yes.

Let's look at other things to prove his residency.

Does he own a Chicago Home? Yes.

Does he pay property taxes to Chicago? Yes.

Does his drivers license have his Chicago address? Yes.

Did he vote as a Chicago resident in the 2010 elections? Yes.


If you can show me the law that shows he isn't a resident...please do. And if he isn't a resident of Chicago...of which city is he a resident?


This will go to the IL Supreme Court...and I believe they will overturn this ruling. I don't live in Chicago so it doesn't matter to me anyway. I just find it hilarious that people that call for "freedom" and "will of the people" so much are so fast to ignore it when it suits their agenda.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



I by no means have extensive info on this but I believe it has to do with him renting his "residence" for an extended period of time-while claiming he was in D.C. working etc. He didn't maintain a separate residence in which he could readily reside at in Ill.

That tenate then testify that the residence was completely empyt and remained so (of Raums stuff) while he was a tenate.

I don't make the laws.... just follow them... Something the Dems seems to have a hard time following.. At least the Chicago Dems.

reply to post by anon72


There is nothing in any of the laws that say an elected official that is absent due to business for the United States is required to have a vacant property back in Chicago to readily move back into. It only states that they can't have their residency taken away from them due to their absense due to business for the United States.

His house wasn't empty of all of his possessions...even says so in this recent ruling. Most large furniture was still there, including couches, TVs and a piano.


I'm just curious...if the IL Supreme Court overturns this and allows him on the ballot. Will you be here cheering that the laws have been upheld? Or will you be upset that he was let back on the ballot?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



I don't cheer at every decision that is made by the Courts. Just live by them.

It it is determined that he is eligible-after both sides has their day(s) in court-so be it.

Doesn't mean he isn't a P.O.S that deserves to be beaten IMO-of course.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I don't cheer at every decision that is made by the Courts. Just live by them.

Really? Cause this kind of sounds like cheering:

I don't believe it. I wish and hope but.....

That would be one heck of a funny ending to this P.O.S.

And then this:

Doesn't mean he isn't a P.O.S that deserves to be beaten IMO-of course.

So you are going to still hold on to the notion that we should advocate violence against those that we don't agree wtih???

Nice.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

So are you guys telling me that you would like to see the will of the people overturned by the courts???

edit on 24-1-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Are you telling us that for just this one issue the will of the people matters to you?

No, I want to see this law followed and all others, as well. I do not want to see any more "exemptions" just because of who you are.

And hell, if my other choice was Moseley-Braun, I might want to support Emmanuel myself. Slight lesser of the two evils IMO.

reply to post by centurion1211

Are you telling us that for just this one issue the will of the people matters to you?

The will of the people always matters to me in elections.

No, I want to see this law followed and all others, as well. I do not want to see any more "exemptions" just because of who you are.

The "exemption" wasn't written for Rahm...it was written for all elected officials that have to basically live in DC while doing their job for the United States government.

And hell, if my other choice was Moseley-Braun, I might want to support Emmanuel myself. Slight lesser of the two evils IMO.

It's not of choice of lesser of two evils...it is a choice between someone who is intelligent (doesn't matter if you agree with him, he is intelligent) and a complete moron. If Moseley would somehow win...Chicago will become the next Detroit.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Beaten politically. Do I have to spell out everything for you? Or do you just look for stuff to be a flamer about?

Again BEATEN POLITICALLY.

I don't believe it. I wish and hope but..... That would be one heck of a funny ending to this P.O.S.

This isn't cheering. Nice try.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by anon72

 

His house wasn't empty of all of his possessions...even says so in this recent ruling. Most large furniture was still there, including couches, TVs and a piano.

The appeals court ruled that "residency" means actually living where you claim to be a resident and against BS such as "I left some boxes in the basement, so I'm still a resident".

Look at it this way. The people who were actually living in the house certainly considered themselves the residents and not Emmanuel - even though he had hidden some of his personal stuff in places the actual residents didn't even know about. That even makes it look like Emmanuel was planning this deception in the beginning, when he moved to D.C.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Are you telling us that for just this one issue the will of the people matters to you?

The will of the people always matters to me in elections.

And what about polls like you mentioned above?

Do they matter all the time, or only when you agree with the results?

reply to post by centurion1211

And what about polls like you mentioned above?

Do they matter all the time, or only when you agree with the results?

I assume you are refering to the polls during the health care reform vote. And that would be up to the individual congressman to decide. And they would have to look at their local districts polling...not national polling.

I would be very upset if my representative or senator took a national poll to base his vote on.

If some of the reps. or senators did have local polling data that showed that the will of the people didn't want them to vote for the bill and they voted for it anyway...then the voice of the people will be heard at the next election. And I fully support that process.

I don't support allowing a poll overturn a elected officials vote...if that is what you are asking.

reply to post by solarstorm


Agreed. I enclose this thread link.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Chicago is a major hub. Hollywood/israeli funding or a Daley-to-DC trade??? We can do without it. Every city can do without it. I live next door to Chicago. Already, the rahm for mayor ads have saturated the airwaves. Where DOES this money come from? Lately, rahm took 2 weeks off from his schedule to vacation in Thailand, while the resident candidates wander in a daze, wondering if rahm thinks he's got it in the bag.

To listen to these ads, you'd think butter wouldn't melt in rahm's mouth. I know better. This is the same federal gang that eviscerated a NATION, now pulling the strings. By going after control of cities and states, they are trying to bolt down the hatches against how they are perceived by what they have done, and just as importantly, they are desperately attempting to save their reputations.

Well, this just goes to show you that you shouldn't quit your cushy gubment job unless you are absolutely sure you have another one to go to.

I really don't care one way or the other, if he gets back on the ballot or not.

reply to post by jibeho


Maybe Obama can just fix it by executive order, or just write him a hall pass.
Like he is doing for the SEIU giving them a pass on Obamacare???
Three SEIU Locals Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement - They donated 27mil to Obama

I could hardly consider that a poll amoung 700 people reflects the general citizens of Chicago.

And in any case, since when does anyone care about what the people want these days.

S&F

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

And what about polls like you mentioned above?

Do they matter all the time, or only when you agree with the results?

I assume you are refering to the polls during the health care reform vote. And that would be up to the individual congressman to decide. And they would have to look at their local districts polling...not national polling.

No, I'm referring to the polls you mentioned where the people of Chicago said they favored Emmanuel. Where you seemed to be amazed someone would prefer a court ruling over the "will of the people".

Did you forget what you wrote already?