11 thoughts on “What A Shame For Chicago”

  1. When has a “minor detail” like that ever slowed a Democrat? “Oh, hey, lookee here, the Saving Chicago’s Kids bill happens to modify the residency restriction to allow anyone serving our country to qualify.”

    Or something.

  3. I bet Chris is probably right here. It sounds at best likely to generate some propaganda for Rahm’s opposition, but I doubt more than that.

  4. If the dead can vote in Chicago, I’m sure they’ll have no problem with a non-resident holding office. Obeying the law is for the rubes.

  5. hillbuzz has got the angle:

    Man’s Country sells lifetime memberships for $10. Once a man becomes a member, he is allowed to show up anytime he wants (the place is open 24/7) to rent a room for 8 hours (he can also rent just a locker in case he doesn’t plan on sleeping and instead just wants to “hangout” or “play basketball” the way Obama used to with Kal Penn or Reggie Love until too much attention was drawn to their antics). The rooms have a small cot, a single pillow, a sheet, and sometimes a TV. Man’s Country is made up of a warren of these little rooms, with no ceiling, in what looks like a Halloween haunted house of twists, turns, nooks, and crannies. Watch out for ghosts!

    Could Emanuel’s Man’s Country membership, coupled with his voter registration, qualify him to run for Mayor of Chicago?

    link

  7. The courts have tended to take a pretty flexible case of residency the last forty years or so. The most interesting case was that of Richard Cheney who was Constitutionally ineligible to be the running mate of George W. Bush since he was a resident of the same state as George W. Bush. Harriet Myers argued his case and won on the grounds that those who filed the case lacked standing to sue. Imagine how different things would be if the court hadn’t punted and actually considered the merits of the case.

  8. In Cheney’s case, I’d be interested what specifically is in the U.S. Code to give substance to the 12th Amendment under which his qualification to become vice-president was challenged. Lacking strict statutory definition I would assume the question of what constitutes residency would be left to the states.

    The 12th, incidentally, says this:

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

    This means that the residency question doesn’t even come up until the day the Electors meet, in December. By that time Cheney would certainly have had plenty of time to satisfy Wyoming’s residency requirement.

    I actually suspect that was the basis for the standing response by which the challenge was struck down. It could only have been a case if Cheney had still been a Texas resident in December of 2000. Doesn’t really seem all that underhanded.

    Nor, really, does a federal case about interpreting an Amendment to the Constitution have significant bearing on a case that would apply only to Chicago, entirely under the state laws of Illinois.

  9. I was hoping somebody would bring up the Cheney example. The 12th is pretty easily evaded. Though we should remember that its original intent was to make sure the VP was from someplace other than Virginia; the early-21st-century equivalent would be to make sure the Pres & VP aren’t both from red or blue states. ;^)

  10. That case was interesting to me because it illustrated that there are other final artbiters of Constitutional issues other than the Supreme Court. My own view is that questions of residency and qualification for President and Vice President are up to the electoral college. That was the implication when the case was struck down for lack of standing.

  11. My own view is that questions of residency and qualification for President and Vice President are up to the electoral college.

    I think as a practical matter that’s pretty much how it stands, unless Congress writes a statute providing some way for a citizen to chalenge in court.

    That case was interesting to me because it illustrated that there are other final artbiters of Constitutional issues other than the Supreme Court.

    Well, SCOTUS made itself “final” arbiter in Marbury v. Madison, and the question of who else could feasibly hold that position doesn’t change the fact it was, whether the justices admitted it to themselves or not, a power grab not explicitly authorized by the Constitution itself.

    There is no reason, therefore, not to think SCOTUS could make itself “final” arbiter on a 12th Amendment challenge as well, if enough of its members wanted the power. In 2000, apparently, that wasn’t the case.

Comments are closed.