Appeals court orders Rahm Emanuel off Chicago ballot

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Jan 24, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    I'm curious how the IL Supreme Court will rule on this issue. It will hopefully be decided less on politics and political leanings and more about residency and "temporary work assignments." A ruling against Emmanual will have interesting consequences for military personnel, unless, of course, the Court finds that temporary assignments for federal military duty are exempt. If so, they are going to have to explain how a temporary assignment to DC for work constitutes Emmanuel's intent to abandon his residency in Cook County.
     
  2. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #2
    [​IMG]

    I'm sure Rahm won't let this crisis go to waste.
     
  3. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
  4. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #4
    I'd rather have Rahm in office to boost film production in Chicago.
     
  5. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #5
    i'd rather have the original mayor daley come back from the dead and be mayor than rahm emanuel
     
  6. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #6
    His announcement to run there to me smacked of a Carpetbagger. I sure hope the he is not allowed to keep running.
     
  7. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #7
    Why is this good? Surely disagree with someone doesn't mean you support not allowing them to run, should a democracy leave the choice up to the people?

    Or do you think that those rules about residency are that important?
     
  8. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #8
    How about it simply being a good thing that the rules are being enforced? ;)

    The law's pretty clear--owning/renting out a residence isn't good enough, you have to live there. He didn't; it's quite irrelevant that he was in D.C. at the request of Obama. He could have said no, and thus could have made the decision to follow the candidacy rules for the election. Pretty simple, really.
     
  9. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    Could someone who was active duty run for mayor of Chicago?
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    He'll probably beat this. This town is so corrupt that he'll most likely be the next mayor.
     
  11. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #11
    +1

    Do current congressmen no longer qualify to run for congress in their current districts because they are serving in D.C.?
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    I understand the intent of the law is to keep carpetbaggers from becoming Mayor. Seems to me the law was too broad given Emanuel voted in Chicago and paid his taxes. He should be allowed to run.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Yeah, I agree. I don't see how he could be prevented from running legally. Either way, we still have no one to get excited about here. It's Rahm, the king of the machine, or a bunch of really pathetic candidates. None of them are the lesser of evils. They're all pretty bad.
     
  14. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #14
    being in the military is one thing...he was not...that rule doesn't apply to military personel..maybe he should have talked to daley to see what his plans are and then move to chicago to meet the requirements...he meets the req's to vote in chicago not run for office in chicago...sorry but he has to live in chicago for a year before the election....so says the court....let him try again in two years
     
  15. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #15
    in illinois senators don't have to live in illinois a year before the election
     
  16. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #16
    What was his listed residence prior to the 2008 presidential election?
     
  17. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    You are right. The other candidates are just too boring and they are all bad. Rahm is the most popular of them all. As much as I don't want him to be mayor, it's probably for the best that someone who knows how to run the system gets the job. Since they are all part of the machine, just let the best run it.
     
  18. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #18
    just cause rahm is the most popular doesn't mean he's the best candidate...we tried the most popular candidate and how's that working for the country ?
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    So you advocate something other than democracy?
     
  20. callmemike20, Jan 26, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011

    callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    I was using popularity in terms of the Chicago machine. Rahm could get more done, good or bad, because of his power in the system. All the others are no names and will have very little control.

    One thing you have to understand about Chicago is that the aldermen have more power than the mayors of most cities. On top of that, everyone has connections to the Cook county board. It's a vicious environment and you really need to have the ability to control it, which Rahm has. The others would just be eaten alive by their "subordinates."

    Edit: I just want to make it clear that I do not support Rahm. I'm just expressing my opinion about Chicago politics. As for the whole popularity and democracy thing, I have my own views on that. Since education is pretty much free, I think people should have a high school diploma or GED in order to vote. It's a very basic requirement that anyone can achieve. But hey, that's a completely different topic.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    So you don't believe in democracy either. Nice.
     
  22. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #22
    True, but he didn't win the popular vote in 2000 and look what a disaster he made in his first term.
     
  23. thefnshow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    #23
    illinois has it's qualification rules and does not meet them end of story...let him try again in two years
     
  24. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    Was America not considered a democracy when woman and blacks couldn't vote?

    I never said I didn't believe in democracy. However, Americans today are much less involved in politics than we once were. In general, people are idiots. Why is the voting age 18? There are plenty of kids in high school that are much more qualified to vote for a candidate than many adults. Why can't they vote? I took all honors and AP classes in high school and many of my classmates knew what was going on at the time and had their own educated opinions. When I was in a regular government class (no honors available), many of the kids didn't even know who the secretary of state was. Hell, many couldn't point out many European countries on a map. These were seniors in high school. If they didn't make it that far, they would know nothing about the government. Do I trust them voting for the right guy? Nope. I understand that the "right guy" could go either way, but when they have no reason for voting for him or her, its pointless.

    Lowering the voting age wouldn't work because of the statement above. Maintaining the current requirements only allows for idiots to vote for someone simply because someone else told him/her to. Having a high school diploma or GED at least shows that they met the minimum qualifications (which are extremely easy to achieve due to America's low education standards) in terms of government education.
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

    Ridiculous. A lousy high school diploma doesn't mean anyone is a more informed voter. All this is is a way to disenfranchise a big chunk of our population.

    Famous high school dropouts who couldn't vote in callmemike20-land.


     

Share This Page