[Illinois] Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot

Chicago Tribune ^ | 1/27/11 | Liam Ford

[Chicago Lampoon]

Did anyone really doubt that the Chicago fix was in all along? The Illinois Supreme Court just announced a 5-2 decision to allow Rahm Emanuel on the ballot for the February 22 Chicago mayoral election. Earlier today, former IL Republican Gov. Jim Thompson and other members of the state GOP establishment came out in favor of giving the former Obama ballot access.

[muawiyah]

http://dcplates.com/Congress.htm Read that! And http://dmv.dc.gov/serv/parking.shtm which covers RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS on registering automobiles ~ applicable to appointees ~ which Rahm was.

[mvpel]

http://dcplates.com/Congress.htm Read that! And http://dmv.dc.gov/serv/parking.shtm which covers RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS on registering automobiles ~ applicable to appointees ~ which Rahm was.

Actually, as I have pointed out at least once above, and which is clearly spelled out in DC law (as opposed to a half-baked webpage summary thrown together by a mentally-challenged graduate of the DC public school system), the reciprocity agreements apply ONLY to appointees who are confirmed by the Senate. The White House Chief of Staff is NOT such a position, and Rahm did not have a Senate confirmation hearing.

DC ST § 50-1401.02 - (4) Officers of the executive branch of the United States government who are not domiciled within the District of Columbia, whose appointment to the office held by them was by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and whose tenure of office is at the pleasure of the President;

And note that all of the plates on the first link you provide talk about "US CONGRESS STAFF:"

Rahm was not US Congress Staff, he was Presidential Staff.

[mvpel]

So where did you get the idea this guy would send his kids to public schools?

So where did you get the idea I said anything about "public" schools? Re-read my post, I said "DC schools." JPDS is a DC school, they even say so in their name:

Jewish Primary Day School Of The Nation's Capital
Place page
6045 16th Street Northwest
Washington D.C., DC 20011
(202) 291-5737

How do you send your kids to school in a city and still manage to not actually "reside in" that city, such that you feel you can openly admit ignoring the driver licensing and vehicle registration statutes, I wonder? Democrat prerogative, I guess.

[muawiyah]

It's a private school. It's non profit. it doesn't pay taxes. DC doesn't run it.

Referring to a private school as something like "an Indiana school" or "a New York City school" or whatever, and it's not public would be considered quite stressful in some quarters ~ I can, in fact, hear those hillbillies popping their knuckles over that one ~ around here a "DC school" is part of the "DC school system" ~ it's certainly not a private school with pretentious name.

[muawiyah]

BTW, if you are a federal appointee DC laws (as I pointed out) provide for reciprocity on licensing.

I, myself, have never had a problem commuting to DC every day in my car, and driving home at night and all without a DC plate.

Virginia and DC have a reciprocity agreement that applies to EVERYONE except taxicabs!

[mvpel]

Okay, okay, sheesh! It’s not a “DC school,” it’s a “school in DC.” Good? Yes?

His kids were still going to school in DC, not in Illinois.

[mvpel]

BTW, if you are a federal appointee DC laws (as I pointed out) provide for reciprocity on licensing.

Only, as I pointed out by quoting DC ST § 50-1401.02(4) above, if you are appointed by the President and subject to CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE. This does not cover the Chief of Staff of the White House. The Chief of Staff of the White House does not get reciprocity on licensing.

I, myself, have never had a problem commuting to DC every day in my car, and driving home at night and all without a DC plate.

Right, but you don't bring your groceries to a refrigerator in DC, you don't relax in front of the TV after a long day of work in DC, you don't sleep in DC, and you don't send your kids to school in DC. Unlike Rahm during 2009.

If you did do these things for 30 days or more, however, you would be required by DC law to get a DC license and DC plates, just like Rahm was.

[muawiyah]

The term "appointee" INCLUDES all the Schedule Cs. Only a few "appointees" are subject to Senate confirmation. There are hundreds more who simply are not.

Individuals who travel back and forth from DC to Virginia or MD or other points to work for private interests are TAXED just as if they were residents. Those who are government employees aren't.

That's because DC is "special" ~ not because government employees are.

I can tell you aren't used to thinking about DC!

[mvpel]

The term "appointee" INCLUDES all the Schedule Cs. Only a few "appointees" are subject to Senate confirmation. There are hundreds more who simply are not.

What's your point? The DC law does not provide license & registration reciprocity to "appointees," it provides reciprocity to "Officers of the executive branch ... whose appointment to the office held by them was by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and whose tenure of office is at the pleasure of the President."

"There are hundreds more who simply are not" eligible to keep their original state drivers' license and registration for more than 30 days of living in DC, including Rahm.

[muawiyah]

You didn't read the handbook references did you. DC provides reciprocity to "government appointees" ~ PERIOD.

Back when the Republicans ran the House, Senate and Presidency all that old stuff got rewritten. There are no legal limitations regarding how you got your appointment!

[Impy]

Yeah, I’ve stepped on cockroaches that dead or alive would make a better Mayor than anyone on the ballot.

Even Obama’s daddy Senator Jar Jar would a step up.

We’ll end up missing Daley of all people, which is saying a lot cause that guy is a sack of crap.

[mvpel]

You didn't read the handbook references did you. DC provides reciprocity to "government appointees" ~ PERIOD.

A "handbook" is not the LAW. Why should I care what a handbook says when I can look at the actual DC ST 50.1401.02(c) instead?

The law says what it says, no matter what some brain-dead DC public schools honors graduate decided to write in a handbook, and it says that reciprocity applies only to "Officers of the executive branch of the United States government who are not domiciled within the District of Columbia, whose appointment to the office held by them was by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and whose tenure of office is at the pleasure of the President."

If it got rewritten years ago, then why is it still in the WestLaw District of Columbia Official Code reference which is linked from the District of Columbia official website?

[muawiyah]

"Information

You have requested a page that is not supported by this site.?"

What you have to do is get a GOOD REFERENCE. One that doesn't work is NOT GOOD.

[mvpel]

Hm, Westlaw must not have presented me with a permalink, but a session link with cookies instead.

Since you apparently want me to walk you through finding the DC Code section I’ve cited or referred to in posts 212, 209, 207, 202, 198, 196, and 192 above, here you go...

This page is the DC Official Code page:

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/dcofficialcode

That page directs you to this page:

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/search/default.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=dcc-1000

That brings you to a WestLaw natural language search page. Then you type in your search term:

50-1401.02

And the third link is the section in question. Click on that, then look at paragraph (c), subparagraph (4).

[muawiyah]

You are doing your search from bottom to top. Try top down starting with Acts of Congress. I think that will be more satisfying to your curiosity.

[mvpel]

I've been courteous enough to cite what I'm talking about for you, and I don't see why you can't extend the same courtesy to me. The "Acts of Congress" are tens of thousands of pages.

And in any case, an Act of Congress is listed nowhere in the WestLaw legislative history for this section, so if you have some notion of how it's anywhere relevant, I'd appreciate you saying so.

Besides, what are you trying to say here? That Rahm Emanuel actually did have a Senate confirmation hearing that I'm overlooking?

My point is that the full text of the DC Official Code trumps a paragraph on the DC DMV website, what's yours?

[muawiyah]

You know very well how the government of the District of Columbia is set up. Absolutely nothing gets put into law in DC until Congress has had a chance to object to it ~ or, in effect, the DC Council can pass all sorts of things but without what amounts to a new federal law taking effect, it just doesn't happen.

So what you have here is a "teaching opportunity".

First, tell us how this is Constitutional. Second, tell us whether there are federal laws applicable to only DC, and third, tell us where DC's own laws exist considering that SOME of the things they may have passed aren't enforced.

What we have is a multi-year string of DC informational brochures telling you that APPOINTEES don't have to get DC licenses for their cars (and just looking that up will give you thousands of references to a very long history of reciprocity and appointees when it comes to DC). You have a single reference to a piece of text somewhere that you think explains everything, but ALAS the URL is bad so I can't bring it up.

I think I'll stick with the brochures.

[mvpel]

I explained to you how to search the DC Code to find the section I’m citing immediately above, perhaps you missed it.

Here it is again:

---

This page is the DC Official Code page:

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/dcofficialcode

That page directs you to this page:

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/search/default.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=dcc-1000

That brings you to a WestLaw natural language search page. Then you type in your search term:

50-1401.02

And the third link is the section in question. Click on that, then look at paragraph (c), subparagraph (4).

---

This is the official DC Code linked from the official DC government website. It is not a “brochure.” It shows the last revision to this section went into effect in 2007, and the WestLaw version is “current through October 22, 2010.”

Yes, DC is operating under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act:

---

SEC. 102. [D.C. Code 1-201] (a) Subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate legislative authority over the nation’s capital granted by article I, 8, of the Constitution, the intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; ...

---

But regulation of licensing and registration for motor vehicles is not one of the prohibited subjects of DC Council legislation in the Home Rule Act.

What’s more, while it’s true that DC has to submit acts that have passed into law to the House and Senate, they automatically become law after about 30 days “unless during such 30-day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act.” DC HRA Sec. 602(c).

Do you have a Joint Resolution repealing the list of exemptions for driver licensing and vehicle registration?

Yes, of course Congress retains the right to “exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the Council by this Act, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District prior to or after enactment of this Act and any act passed by the Council.”

But there’s no indication anywhere on the WestLaw legislative history that Congress did so on this subject.

You’re citing a brochure, I’m citing a law. Law trumps brochures.

There’s a simple explanation - the DC bureaucrats in charge of the brochures are not well-educated enough to know the difference between a “government appointee” and a “Presidential appointee subject to confirmation by the Senate and serving at the pleasure of the President.”

Just look at Senator Chuck Schumer’s “three branches of government” for a perfect example of this type of thing. And he’s a SENATOR, not some paper-pushing DC flunkie.

[muawiyah]

Obviously I know how to dig through the statutes for DC having had to do that off and on over the years.

Please note that the FIRST statute you come to is called CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA.

Yes, DC has a state constitution ~ what it's missing is a state.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

So much for the utility of the DC statutes as a source for laws affecting visitors and inhabitants.

[mvpel]

If you know how to dig through the statutes, why don’t you dig up 50-1401.02 yourself? Why are you yanking my chain like this?

If you do a simple Google search, you’ll find various information about the New Columbia Constitution and the District of Columbia statehood movement, which is part and parcel of Democrat efforts over the years to gain three more seats in Congress, which have thankfully been slapped down over and over again.

But what does that have to do with 50-1401.02(c) and the fact that Rahm Emanuel broke the law by failing to get a DC drivers license and plates after living there for more than 30 days?

If the DC Code has no bearing on visitors and inhabitants, what does?

And since you seem to have a hang-up about the WestLaw page, try this one instead:

http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll/dccode/12b4f/15cd3/15ed9/161fd/161ff/1620b?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_50-140102