Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Where is your post thanking Obama and the Congressional Democrats for the slightly larger paychecks you received in January? lol, true. I should have done that.

SWEET. I just received my smaller paycheck taking into account the new income tax. Thanks Gov. Quinn and democratic leaders of Illinois, you corrupt assholes!

Anyone know the story behind this waiver/exemption situation? Why does it exist? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-...cized-should-be

This is why I think Obama has been a disaster so far as President. Not because i'm against a lot of his policy decisions, but because his focus is so completely off the ball. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-h...un-control.html The country is still in an economic hole and he chooses to focus on issues like healthcare and guns. I'm not advocating that those issues be ignored, but come on. He clearly understood that the SOTU needed to address the economy, and then he's going to waste energy on some bogus gun control debate that he won't win? Ridiculous.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) It's hard to ignore someone that is considered one of the front runners for the GOP Presidential nomination and: - Is all over a major News network - Is highly visible and active in social media - Has her own TV show - Had her her daughter on one of the highest rated shows on TV By liberals, because they want to continue this pipe dream that no real candidate will challenge Obama.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) So, in other words, anyone who lives anywhere else for even a day or a week within the year before the election is ineligible? I don't think you can "permanently" live somewhere for a week. I think that's an easy call for the election board and no one would fight it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) 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

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) 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).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) 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.

I guess this fits here: The Appellate Court is on a roll, striking down Gov. Quinn's 31 billion dollar construction bill for having too many unrelated subjects in the bill: http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/01...r-tax-hike.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) You know what the counter-point is though...that the rules were written in a totally different era, and "inertia" is not a great legal theme. I don't buy that these rules aren't applicable to today. A resident is a resident, regardless of his travel tendencies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Anyway...I really get what the author is trying to say. In Obama's inauguration speech..."We are the people we've been waiting for" was one of the better lines. The time has come for actually solving hard problems, not putting them off. We've had 9 and a half percent unemployment for nearly a year. Wall Street is riding high while everyone else suffers. Half the world seems to be underwater. Basically every state in the union has a budget crisis. Yet, we're too scared to say anything out of the ordinary, so we call for cutting back fossil fuel subsidies (as has been done by I presume the last 30 SOTU speeches), we never name anything we actually want to cut so we take the 3 year budget freeze Obama proposed last year and make it even freeze-ier by making it last 5 years, and we call for desperately needed infrastructure investment without having any workable plan to make it happen. It's not being the people we've been waiting for. You know who has? House Republicans. Guess who isn't going to go along with them... (and yes, I agree that they need to look into defense/security cuts)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) IMO, for democracy to work properly, the people in the system have to care. Sadly, the MAJORITY of the people in our system care about voting, but not about knowing who or what they're voting for. The creation of parties, group-think, and other such ideals have infected democracy, and thus I cannot and do not trust the voters. People voting for candidates in which they have no idea what these candidates represent, IMO, is a complete and absolute bastardization of what this democracy was meant to be. And it's come down to the fact that politicians KNOW this, and exploit it. Entire parties know this, and they too, exploit it. And to me, it's not all right...and it's not working as intended. They've corrupted and broken the system, and convinced almost (it seems) everyone that the system is working perfectly fine, as intended. I don't think it's THAT broken. You're talking about a minority of people that don't vote anyway. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 05:46 PM) Link Maybe the more these ridiculous attempts at security come to light, the more the public will eventually throw up their hands and say enough already and force the government to stop wasting so much time/energy/money on this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) Search and seizure actions related to traffic stops are restricted, as are flight security checks. The restrictions and checks are different. Since these are not rights but privileges, I think they have significant legal leeway to do what they see fit to ensure security. Sure, they have a "reasonable" restriction. It'll be up to 9 people to decide whether pat downs are "reasonable." 8 years ago there's no way this would be successful. Now? I'm not so sure.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) The problem here is that the term resides has different meaning in different contexts. For example, if I was going to sue Rahm, I believe that I could sue him in Cook County and claim that this was his residence. I would argue that he had always lived here and that he had every intent of returning here. That DC/Virginia would be improper venue as those are merely temporary locations. Thus we have a problem with the terminology "reside" as it is undefined in the statute and therefore is going to be based wholly on interpretation of other case law. In my opinion the legislative intent (which if I would actually research if Rahm's team wants to hire me), is that they do not want people to run who have no connection to the City. Thus they have a 1 year requirement, so that the person has some connection to the city. I believe the 1 year requirement was meant to be a minimum in terms of time spent, not that some one who had lived in the area for their entire life, would be excluded because for 1 day in the previous year he happened to live elsewhere (not the exact fact pattern, but if we take this ruling to the logical extreme, the person who did not live in chicago for 1 day in the prior year would technically be disqualified.) As I do not believe that is what the legislature intended, I believe that the law and the interpretation is warped. I believe that the real intent was that a candidate must have substantial connections to the City (OR) have lived in the city for at least 1 year prior. This way if I lived in Chicago my entire life and happened to move for a job for 1 month, I wouldnt be automatically disqualified. But we have a problem, the law is what it is. Circuit court/appellate should only be interpreting the law, they should not make law. The Supreme Court of IL can change law, they could say that the law is unconstitutional under IL law, they could interpret the case law differently, etc. I think that there were good intentions behind the law (not allowing carpetbaggers), but I believe Rahm's situation is not one that was meant to be excluded, it just happened to be due to legislators not being good at drafting laws. There is a shocker. While he was Chief of Staff he was certainly a resident, for venue purposes, of DC/Virginia (wherever his apartment was), assuming the cause of action occurred during that time.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:22 PM) That's a pretty backwards way of looking at it. So keep an antiquated law in place for spite? Why would it be out of spite? I just hate when courts change law based on their interpretation of what they think legislators intended. That just leads to more problems. The law should be changed if the people think it's worth changing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Trouble is...inertia. These sorts of laws don't get changed until someone gives a legislature a reason to change them. Ok? Just because Emmanuel is going to get "screwed" doesn't mean we should allow the Court to change the law.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) Nope. And there are many restrictions on that too, such as licensure, insurance, traffic laws, etc. What's your point? I thought you were saying he couldn't maintain an unreasonable search/seizure action because flying isn't a right. But they still limit searches in the context of traffic stops/searches.