Out of curiosity, what is your standard for judging whether or not he plans to return to Pennsylvania? A house which his family can’t possibly live in? Mailbox in a UPS store? Pinky-swear?
For politicians, I’m not aware of a single case where living in the DC area has been found to have vitiated in-state or in-district residency.
To answer your question, then: pinky-swear. Or, more accurately, the politician’s expressed intent, not contradicted by any other evidence. For example, if his children applied to a Virginia university and claimed in-state tuition; if he registered to vote in Virginia; if he applied for a Virginia concealed handgun permit as a resident; or if he served on a jury in Virginia.
Has there ever, in the history of this country, been a case in which living in the DC area has removed a senator’s residency in his home state? Ever?
If not, why do you believe that Santorum should be the first?
Republican.
-Joe
It’s not the “living in Virginia” that gets people. It’s the NOT living in Pennsylvania. I think you’re intentionally avoiding that. No one has ever said he’s not allowed to maintain a place in DC, or that he shouldn’t be able to have his family with him there when he’s there. It is the fact that he seems to return to his home state only to campaign – that he doesn’t seem to “reside” there, ever, in the literal sense – that is bothersome. Several times in this thread, folks have pointed out that, although complying with the letter of the law, Santorum is well outside the spirit. It’s fine to stay in or around DC when working, but it would be nice if he returned for a good period to Pennsylvania. Furthermore, you have been shown evidence that his intent is not to return – the fact that he doesn’t is pretty good for starters, no place to go with all the kids in tow is also a good indicator. You apparently don’t think it indicative.
Your mind bending take on his hypocrisy – with what seemed like exponentially stacking assumptions – was good for a laugh. Boiled down it amounts to – something is bad until I want to do it at which point it becomes ok.
Finally, if your argument is born of some party loyalty, then find a democrat with just as egregious avoidance of his or her home turf and we’ll criticize that congressperson as well. Then we can all breathe easy with al of these mental gymnastics out of the way.
It’s not indicative. I agree he’s probably not planning to move into that particular house, but I don’t agree he’s planning to stay in Virginia.
Nor do I agree this violates any spirit of any law, since most senators and reps with families are in the same boat to one degree or another.
Not so - although I understand how you might reach that conclusion.
What do you say about my example with the guy voting to raise taxes? Hypocrtite, or simply changed his mind?
It constantly amazes me here how slippery in meaning the word “hypocrite” has become. It means something. Stop trying to make it mean something else.
I absolutely agree with both sides here.
The fact that Santorum has a residence in Virginia while representing Pennsylvania in Congress in no way removes his status as a Pennsylvania resident, and never will, even if he spends the next 30 years in the Senate.
However, the fact that his Pennsylvania residence is not lived in indicates that he is merely abiding by the letter, not the spirit, of maintaining his residence there.
There is, of course, a time-honored solution to this problem of hair-splitting which citizens of Pennsylvania may choose if they like: vote the bastard out.
I’m with Bricker on this one. Santorum is a hypocrite and pondscum and shouldn’t be in office (although I wonder about the state whose citizens have elected him repeatedly). But, I don’t believe he is violating any law or principle either in letter or in spirit with regard to his residence. Members of Congress are legally resident in the states that elected them. There is no rule about furniture or drapery or number of visits. This attack on Santorum is idiotic and it detracts from the scores of legitimate lines of criticism against him. Harp on his hypocrisy, by all means, but he’s not violating any law.
Oh, OK. So if I PLAN to pay my child support, then domestic relations will be cool with that intention, even if I don’t mail a check? :dubious:
One presumes he’s current on his property taxes.
Funny thing on that - he’s actually been late on those at least once, failed to respond to a summons for jury duty, and did not have an occupancy permit for his home until this was noted by the authorities. Reportedly, some extended relatives have used the same address for their voter registration.
The likely answer to that may in fact be the strongest piece of evidence that he never intended to live there. His wife’s parents own the property next door. :eek:
So, he doesn’t even stay there when he visits, and acknowledges that there isn’t even enough room.
The difference is that with legal residence, intention is a key part of the legal analysis. That’s not the case with child support.
You own or rent a residence and you intend it to be your legal residence and you have not changed your legal residence to anywhere else and do not intend to do so. Once you have those, you’re pretty much golden
whole bean already answered this pretty well, but to reiterate: it’s not the fact that he maintains a residence in the DC area which is the problem.
Most senators and reps maintain a residence in the DC area? That I’ll believe. Most senators and reps spend so little effort to maintain their ties to the state that elected them that they have to be reminded to get an occupancy permit for their supposed home? That I doubt.
“Return” in what sense? The family has never resided there. See this Pittsburgh Post Gazette article.
Unless this article is leaving out information, apparently he did not own a house here between 1995 and 1997.
Do you think that his <$100,000 house (see picture in linked article) is anything like his three-quarters of a million dollar Virginia house?
Anyway, like I said before, it is the opinions of people like myself and others in this thread that really matter in this case. Your opinion means exactly dick.
But, after he’s bounced out on his ass, I’m sure you’ll be there to help him pack up the moving van for his trip back to Pittsburgh. Penn Hills awaits. :rolleyes:
Mr. Chairman, I move that as a penalty, VA has to keep him.
Oh screw that.
Man, I use to live in PA and recently moved down to VA. Seems I can’t get rid of this guy. You voters in PA will have to do it for me. I just hope he moves somewhere else… like maybe Antarctica.
Maybe if we’re all lucky the Pope will ask him to serve as a Vatican ambassador to Upper Slobovia or something after we Pennsylvanians kick him to the curb in November…
Let Bricker take him in, since he seems so fond of the bastard.
I don’t know. I’m a big defender of the contention that Bricker is possibly the single most misunderstood poster on this board (and I type that with zero sarcasm, irony or insinuation). I don’t know that he so much personally sympathizes with Santorum (or the Bush administration) as that he just has an ironclad standard of proof of wrongdoing. In other words, my hypothesis is that Bricker is so fair-minded about accusations of illegal or unethical behavior that it LOOKS like he’s personally touting the persons so accused. However, what he’s actually doing is defending someone against accusations that are backed by what he sees as flimsy evidence or possibly inferential evidence.
I’m with jayjay on this one. Bricker brings the same mindset to these boards as he does to the courtroom, e.g. what says the law? Although he and I disagree on some points, I have to respect the man’s position.
Wow. This is The Pit. Somebody say fuck, already!