I agree with the Illinois Supreme Court's decision that Rahm Emanuel meets the residency requirements to run for mayor of Chicago. Both as a practical matter and as a philosophical point, I think people who serve in Washington and thus physically live there more or less full time, should be presumed to still hold their official residency back home. If Emanuel had simply not rented out his house there would likely have been no question whatever about his eligibility.
However a line Emanuel has used several times annoys me highly and is a symptom of the "rules don't really mean what they say when its inconvenient" mentality of the Democrat Party.
"The voters deserved the right to make the choice of who should be mayor. And I think what the Supreme Court said was basically, in short, that the voters will make the decision who should be mayor. Nobody else should make it for them. "
But of course that's balderdash and an attempt even in victory to advance the notion that rules don't matter when they bump up against some warm and fuzzy ideal of the liberal mind. No one was questioning the voters right to choose their mayor. The issue was Rahm Emanuel's right to run for mayor.
The people may well have elected Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton to another term as president but the law, specifically the 22nd Amendment, forbids that from happening. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of rubes and bumpkins who make it up as we go along to suit the short term interests of politicians.
Rahm Emanuel did himself and the law a disservice by resorting to demagoguery when truth and common sense would have served him just as well.