From HCS and Gen’s Pad:
“I have to admit, it wasn’t something I had planned on,” Alderman Joe Baldi said of his competition. Mr. Baldi was one of three board members who voted in January to reduce the residency requirement to one year. Ms. Dougherty vetoed the motion.
The matter found its way to court when Mr. Young sued the city in an attempt to overturn the three-year requirement. He said the requirement, which would have barred him from a spot on this year’s ballot, was unconstitutional.
The courts agreed.
“The Judge said “no residency requirement” is most appropriate despite the wishes of the residents,” Ms. Dougherty wrote in an e-mail. “It will be up to the people to decide who is best able to manage the City’s issues, if the Judge allows that.”
Mr. Baldi said he hadn’t expected the matter to go this far. “Reducing the residency requirement was what I had in mind,” he said. “It never occurred to me that you’d have somebody who is not a resident applying (to run for mayor). I don’t even know what to call that.”
If it’s “inappropriate” to insist on a three-year residency requirement, why would a one-year requirement be any more acceptable? This is a small scale example of what we are seeing on a national level. Naturally, this concept of using the Constitution against the concept of citizenship and sovereignty begs the question of how there can even be such a thing as a constitution if the entity for which the constitution supposedly provides a foundation is deemed, on a fundamental level, to not exist.
The mental gyrations which the constitutional revisionists in the judiciary are willing to engage in order to justify their movement seldom cease to astound me.