Chicago Mayoral Race thread

[Soxbadger]

My issue is that we've set up rules for our political candidates and after the fact we want it changed for a particular candidate. Worse, we want the Supreme Court to read into the law and guess at what the legislators intended.

 

Technically Rahm was considered a resident by the trial court, aka the trier of fact. It was the appellate court who then decided to interpret resident to not include Rahm.

 

Resident/residence is not a clear cut term, if anyone is to blame its the legislature.

[Jenksismyhero]

Technically Rahm was considered a resident by the trial court, aka the trier of fact. It was the appellate court who then decided to interpret resident to not include Rahm.

 

Resident/residence is not a clear cut term, if anyone is to blame its the legislature.

 

Well, I disagree, simply because we all know what resides means. If I tell you I reside in Illinois, I'm not talking about an income property I own in California.

 

The question is what does it mean within the statute. I agree it's not defined, but as soon as the SC "decides" what it means then the law will be changed, for better or for worse, without legislation.

[Balta1701]

Well, I disagree, simply because we all know what resides means. If I tell you I reside in Illinois, I'm not talking about an income property I own in California.

 

The question is what does it mean within the statute. I agree it's not defined, but as soon as the SC "decides" what it means then the law will be changed, for better or for worse, without legislation.

Your example here has zero meaning and you know better than that...this isn't an income property we're talking about, this is a property he kept while working a temporary position out of state.

 

Saying "we all know what resides means" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[StrangeSox]

What if he was a snowbird with a home in Florida/Arizona that he was at for 4 or 5 months a year, but was in Chicago for 7 or 8? Does that not count as a resident?

[Y2HH]

What if he was a snowbird with a home in Florida/Arizona that he was at for 4 or 5 months a year, but was in Chicago for 7 or 8? Does that not count as a resident?

 

I think in tax law, wherever you reside longer, is where you reside...the other is just a place you own property.

 

I recall this from the 1980's when the then president of Commodore Computer lived in Canada exactly 1/2 year + 1 day per year, and lived here the remainder of the year...to dodge a huge portion of taxes legally. There were stories that he was nearly out of "days" left to live in the US and would plan when he could "vacation" here from his "home" in Canada...

Edited January 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I think in tax law, wherever you reside longer, is where you reside...the other is just a place you own property.

 

I recall this from the 1980's when the then president of Commodore Computer lived in Canada exactly 1/2 year + 1 day per year, and lived here the remainder of the year...to dodge a huge portion of taxes legally. There were stories that he was nearly out of "days" left to live in the US and would plan when he could "vacation" here from his "home" in Canada...

Wait, so there are different definitions of "Residency" depending on the type of law we're discussing? I thought "We all know what a resident is".

[Y2HH]

Wait, so there are different definitions of "Residency" depending on the type of law we're discussing? I thought "We all know what a resident is".

 

I have no idea what they consider a resident in this case, but whatever it is needs to be applied universally. I may not like Rahm, but I think he belongs on the ballot.

[Soxbadger]

I have no idea what they consider a resident in this case, but whatever it is needs to be applied universally.

 

This is the problem with legislatures/ laws, words are not used the same universally. Thus the simplest solution is to define terms in the statute, many statutes have definition sections. This case would be much different had the legislature defined resident/residence in the statute. That way you dont have the same word defined 2 different ways, in 2 different cases leaving the door open to interpretation.

 

Well, I disagree, simply because we all know what resides means. If I tell you I reside in Illinois, I'm not talking about an income property I own in California.

 

I understand the different definitions of reside. In your example you are using "reside" to indicate your domicile.

 

But I could use reside this way:

 

"I am currently living in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago"

 

or

 

"I currently am residing in Florida for the winter, but I live in Chicago."

 

or

 

"I currently reside in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago for the summer."

 

Its a problem when I can use a word interchangeably. I can reside in a location and be there physically, I can reside in a location and not be there physically. I personally believe that if you wanted me to write the opinion I could write it either way and feel pretty good about my argument. There is no clear cut answer in my opinion, and due to that the Supreme Court has to get involved.

 

I dont think they are rewriting the law, they are merely trying to interpret what it actually means. Because as of right now, it means nothing.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

The question is what does it mean within the statute. I agree it's not defined, but as soon as the SC "decides" what it means then the law will be changed, for better or for worse, without legislation.

So then what do you expect the SC to do? You don't want them to intereperet, and there is no solid definition, so... what then? What do they do in this case?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the problem with legislatures/ laws, words are not used the same universally. Thus the simplest solution is to define terms in the statute, many statutes have definition sections. This case would be much different had the legislature defined resident/residence in the statute. That way you dont have the same word defined 2 different ways, in 2 different cases leaving the door open to interpretation.

 

 

 

I understand the different definitions of reside. In your example you are using "reside" to indicate your domicile.

 

But I could use reside this way:

 

"I am currently living in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago"

 

or

 

"I currently am residing in Florida for the winter, but I live in Chicago."

 

or

 

"I currently reside in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago for the summer."

 

Its a problem when I can use a word interchangeably. I can reside in a location and be there physically, I can reside in a location and not be there physically. I personally believe that if you wanted me to write the opinion I could write it either way and feel pretty good about my argument. There is no clear cut answer in my opinion, and due to that the Supreme Court has to get involved.

 

I dont think they are rewriting the law, they are merely trying to interpret what it actually means. Because as of right now, it means nothing.

 

All of these examples support my argument. Your use of "resides" is where you are physically in a given year, which is what the appellate court ruled.

 

I'm not arguing the statute lacks a definition. I'm not arguing that the courts aren't in this process to interpret what it means. But given my experience in litigation, trust me, judges can come up with a million different reasons to support their rulings. It has little to do with reality sometimes, and everything to do with what they feel and think and how best to warp the law to their advantage. Knowing that, I despise the Court being the vehicle to change law (hence my agreement with that particular viewpoint of Justice Scalia).

[Y2HH]

Apparently my hypocrisy knows no end...

 

I should clarify...

 

While I "hope" Emanuel does not get back on the ballot because I feel he will win and I do not care for him very much, I also "know" that he belongs on the ballot and should be allowed to run.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your example here has zero meaning and you know better than that...this isn't an income property we're talking about, this is a property he kept while working a temporary position out of state.

 

Saying "we all know what resides means" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

"Temporary" until the Daley job opened up.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What if he was a snowbird with a home in Florida/Arizona that he was at for 4 or 5 months a year, but was in Chicago for 7 or 8? Does that not count as a resident?

 

For candidacy purposes under the statute, he was physically resided in Illinois during the year, so yes.

[StrangeSox]

All of these examples support my argument. Your use of "resides" is where you are physically in a given year, which is what the appellate court ruled.

 

Ok, he left out one example:

 

"I'm currently living in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago most of the year"

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait, so there are different definitions of "Residency" depending on the type of law we're discussing? I thought "We all know what a resident is".

 

Not really, it's still based on your PHYSICAL presence. The dispute in law is the amount of time one resides in a particular state.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok, he left out one example:

 

"I'm currently living in Florida for the winter, but I reside in Chicago most of the year"

 

You're still physically present in Chicago for "most of the year." Again, i'm talking about this particular statute, which requires being a "resident in" the state of Illinois one year prior to the election. If Rahm worked in DC for 8 months and lived in chicago for 4 months, he should still be considered a resident for candidacy purposes

[Balta1701]

You're still physically present in Chicago for "most of the year." Again, i'm talking about this particular statute, which requires being a "resident in" the state of Illinois one year prior to the election. If Rahm worked in DC for 8 months and lived in chicago for 4 months, he should still be considered a resident for candidacy purposes

So, what about 3 months in Chicago?

2 months?

1.5 months?

0.75 months?

0.15 months?

 

Please tell me where the black and white line that everyone here would agree upon sits.

[StrangeSox]

You're still physically present in Chicago for "most of the year." Again, i'm talking about this particular statute, which requires being a "resident in" the state of Illinois one year prior to the election. If Rahm worked in DC for 8 months and lived in chicago for 4 months, he should still be considered a resident for candidacy purposes

 

If I take an overseas contract position, let's say private contractor in Iraq working for the US government, and keep my home in Chicago but I'm not there for 18 months, am I still a resident of Chicago? If not, what's my residence? The hotel in Iraq?

[Y2HH]

So, what about 3 months in Chicago?

2 months?

1.5 months?

0.75 months?

0.15 months?

 

Please tell me where the black and white line that everyone here would agree upon sits.

 

That line "resides" wherever *I* say it resides.

 

You are now under my dictatorship. So whatever I say, everyone here agrees.

 

The answer is: 42

[Jenksismyhero]

So, what about 3 months in Chicago?

2 months?

1.5 months?

0.75 months?

0.15 months?

 

Please tell me where the black and white line that everyone here would agree upon sits.

 

Actually you know, I got it wrong. It's one year plus under the statute, which was his problem. He moved back before the election, but not a year before. So that's your baseline. Minimum of one year of physical presence with a permanent abode is your definition under this statute.

 

But still, "residence" requires your physical presence. The question is just how long does it require a physical presence, and in this case it's a year, whereas in other statutes it might be shorter or longer.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

If I take an overseas contract position, let's say private contractor in Iraq working for the US government, and keep my home in Chicago but I'm not there for 18 months, am I still a resident of Chicago? If not, what's my residence? The hotel in Iraq?

 

For purposes of being a candidate for Illinois political office, you would not be a resident of Illinois. That's more clear than the Rahm case though.

[Jenksismyhero]

That line "resides" wherever *I* say it resides.

 

You are now under my dictatorship. So whatever I say, everyone here agrees.

 

The answer is: 42

 

Um, no. Follow the statute. The discrepancy isn't how long it takes, it's whether it requires a physical presence.

[StrangeSox]

Actually you know, I got it wrong. It's one year plus under the statute, which was his problem. He moved back before the election, but not a year before. So that's your baseline. Minimum of one year of physical presence with a permanent abode is your definition under this statute.

 

But still, "residence" still requires your physical presence. The question is just how long does it require a physical presence, and in this case it's a year, whereas in other statutes it might be shorter or longer.

 

So, in other words, anyone who lives anywhere else for even a day or a week within the year before the election is ineligible?

[Y2HH]

Um, no. Follow the statute. The discrepancy isn't how long it takes, it's whether it requires a physical presence.

 

You have no sense of humor and missed my attempt at lightening the mood here.

[Soxbadger]

The problem with your argument is now how do we define "physical presence." I think that its clear if Rahm did not rent out his property and had left it as his "House" even if he did not step foot in it for the previous year, he was clearly a resident.

 

The question is, does renting your property, preclude you from having it considered your "residence". There are two sides to the argument. The first side is that, if some one else is living there, it is theirresidence and therefore it is not yours. The second side is that, it is your property, you own it and you clearly have an intent to keep ownership (youre renting it, not selling it) therefore it still is your residence.

 

Furthermore, physical presence clearly does not mean actually being in the state, it means having something in the state, but it definitely does not mean your person.

 

Once again we know this because had Rahm not rented the property, it clearly still would have been his residence, regardless of whether he had not stepped onto the property for 1 year or more.

 

I'm not arguing the statute lacks a definition. I'm not arguing that the courts aren't in this process to interpret what it means. But given my experience in litigation, trust me, judges can come up with a million different reasons to support their rulings. It has little to do with reality sometimes, and everything to do with what they feel and think and how best to warp the law to their advantage. Knowing that, I despise the Court being the vehicle to change law (hence my agreement with that particular viewpoint of Justice Scalia).

 

You know Im a litigator right?

 

And that is exactly why I think that the legislature is the one who dropped the ball. I can make the word reside mean what I want depending on what definition I need.

 

I just do not think that there is any way you can say there is a clear definition of reside, because physical presence is unclear at best. There is no guidance as to whether physical presence means actually stepping foot in the state, or having a physical presence. Furthermore, if we are to suggest that physical presence means, actually being in the state, then the proper reading would be that they would have had to not left the state for the last year, because reside requires actually physically being in the state.

 

Thus we know reside can not only turn on actual physical presence, because we know that if I have a house exclusively in IL and I take a vacation for 11 months, that I clearly resided in Illinois.

 

That is why the argument of physical presence fails, because we know that you dont actually have to be in the state to be a resident.