It would be interesting to see how senators from other states handle the problem of maintaining residency in the state they represent while doing their job in Washington. I gather some maintain apartments in or near the city, while their families live in their home states, and that they return to their home states to visit and keep in touch with their constituents. I realize that having two residences can be expensive and troublesome; on the other hand, this is an issue which has plagued Congressmen since this country was founded. The need to maintain two residences is used to justify the high salaries we pay our Congressmen; the hardship of being separated from one’s family has also been seen as the price one pays for serving one’s country.
Logistics come into play, obviously, in factoring in how one handles the issue of representing one’s state while having to spend a substantial part of the year in Washington. However, from Penn Hills to Washington, D.C. is an easy, four-hour drive. I know, because I’ve lived most of my life within 15 miles or so of it, and I’ve made the trip a few times myself for a weekend getaway. In fact, the state capital, Harrisburg, is only an hour closer. I may be unrealistic, but I would expect a man who is supposed to be representing my state and my interests to be in a position where he spends enough time in my state to be aware of those interests. In short, if Mr. Santorum does indeed claim his residence is in Penn Hills, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to actually spend some time there, especially given how comparatively close it is. Instead, it looks as if he spends no time there, whatsoever. In fact, if I remember the newspaper reports correctly, another family was living in the house he claims as his residence, although I forget whether they were family or tenants.
If Senators from, say, California, Nevada, Oregon, or Alaska can have homes in their states to which they regularly return and stay in, surely it’s not unreasonable for Mr. Santorum to occaisionally take the four hour drive back to what he says is his residence in Pennsylvania? (I admit I don’t know if or how often the Senators from the states I mentioned do this.) For that matter, our own President returns to the ranch he calls home in Texas at regular intervals. Is it so unreasonable to expect Mr. Santorum to do any less?
Right… except that I conceded he was mostly likely being a hypocrite already. So this IS a point in the thread, but not one in serious contention.
(The only caveat I had for this concession was whether Santorum had simply changed his mind in the intervening time – that is, if he honestly felt one way during his previous election, and now, having actually lived in the role, honestly feels another way, then he doesn’t meet the definition of hypocrite. But I pointed out that if this were so, an intellectually honest person would take great pains to explain how he was wrong earlier, and had changed his mind, and Santorum does not appear to have done this).
After being newly elected in 2004, brothers Ken (Senate) and John (House) Salazar shared an apartment in Washington while their families remained in Colorado. I do not know if this is still the case.
I don’t understand the kerfuffle about Santorum’s residence. Members of the military are allowed to maintain residency in their home state without any physical presence. Why should a politician elected to serve in the District of Columbia be any different? Obviously, the state of Pennsylvania feels he is a resident, or he would be barred from running.
I assume Santorum pays property taxes on the house. Does he release his income taxes? What state does he pay income tax to?
While I agree that it was wrong to charge the school district for his children’s cyber-schooling, and that he is a hypocrite on the residential issue, and I’ll be delighted when he is kicked out of office in November, the argument that he is not a resident of Pennsylvania is simple nonsense. A mean-spirited, meaningless tempest in a teakettle with purely political motivations. If it was wrong for Santorum to use the residency issue against his opponent in that House race, it is just as wrong to use it against him now.
Military personnel aren’t representatives of their particular states, or of any state at all since noncitizens are permitted to enlist. They serve the country. Their service is unaffected by their official residence, which needn’t be in the US at all. Pols *are * in DC as representatives of their states or districts, and are required by the Constitution to reside there. We can desire them to act in the national rather than local interest but there is no requirement for that.
Where do you find that a case has been brought to the state questioning it? The state has no impetus to make a ruling either way until that happens. There has been no ruling by the state, and your statement that there has been one, much less “obviously”, is simply false. The local school district, however, *has * ruled, and to the contrary.
Notwithstanding that all the evidence supports it?
What? During an election campaign? How shocking! For heavens’ sake, what will we see next from these people?
Look a little more closely. The issue being used against Santorum isn’t residency but hypocrisy.
DeLay wasted no time changing his official residence from Texas to Maryland after leaving the House, in recognition of the fact that his future lies in DC lobbying/thinktankery/Fox-yapping. Anybody else suspect Shitfoam will become his partner? He won’t even have to go back “home” to pack his furniture.
If no one, including his political opponents in the state have brought up the issue of residency to the appropriate authorities in the state, perhaps there is no legal issue.
The bulk of this thread has been argument about whether Santorum is a legal resident of Pennsylvania. Had it been merely about his hypocrisy, I wouldn’t have bothered to post at all, as I fully agree that he is a hypocrite.
Won’t surprise me either. But that is completely irrelevant as to whether the state of Pennsylvania considers him a resident now, and thus eligible to run for the Senate from that state.
Look, slam him all you want on hypocrisy; I shan’t argue. Casey’s campaign is apparently intending to use Santorum’s abiding by the letter, rather than the spirit, of residency as a weapon against him; I’ve no argument with that either. He is a despicable man, he is slime, he is a cancer in the Senate - all that is true. But to claim that he is not technically a citizen of Pennsylvania is, as I said, simple nonsense.
I’m shocked at the number of people who want to make this patently nonsensical and illogical argument. It seems a much more reasonable argument to say that there has not been any clear mechanism to bring this issue to some sort of legal resolution. But just because something is the way that it is doesn’t mean that it is legal. Certainly you can think of many things that are or have been done without any court weighing in as to their legality.
This really is the “I wish P to be true” argument.
The other odd thing about this issue is that a good number of Republicans are arguing that Santorum is in the right. I thought that they were the ones who felt that Washington is a corrupting place, and that the states, and the people of the states, were the place for the representatives to be grounded.
It also appears to put them in the position to make arguments that federal law automatically trumps state law, which I also thought was anathema to the Republican dogma.
Finally, it seems to reek of situational ethics, in that it’s okay to establish a clear sham of a residence for this purpose for this person.
Quite a sad state of affairs the Republicans find themselves in these days. It seems like only a year or so ago where they could still do no wrong.
Or, as I’ve already tried to explain to Bricker, it would work against Casey’s campaign for his supporters to do that.
Only because it was hijacked in that direction by the board’s most obstinate frequent poster.
You’ve said that before, and you’ve been reminded where all the evidence points, and that the local school board has ruled otherwise. Yet all you can do is repeat your dismissal. Are you really trying to convince anyone of anything?
Well, I’m shocked at the number of people who are assuming that Santorum is illegally representing Pennsylvania, when there is no evidence that that is the case. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appears to have no problem with it, at any rate.
Well, if he has not been a Pennsylvania resident since at least 2004, I should think any Pennsylvanian could have raised the issue.
All evidence? In what state is he registered to vote? In what state does he pay his taxes?
No, because you won’t be convinced. Personally, I believe that if it were Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton that were in this situation, you wouldn’t care one iota. Nor would I, and I’m fair enough to extend that same benefit to someone I personally despise.
Our representatives in Congress serve under special circumstances. They must maintain somewhere to live in or near D.C and they must choose whether to be separated from their family or bring the family to D.C. They make $162,250 a year. Although that is very good money, it’s not great money. Without independent wealth, I can easily see that it could be quite difficult for a member of Congress to pull off the above. I’m willing to cut them some slack on how they deal with their living arrangements whether I like them or not. YMMV.
Actually it says, “Inhabitant” of state. A brief look at Senator S’s Wikipedia bio shows that Santorum is a PA native.
So we’ve confirmed that Santorum is legally entitled to be a US Senator IMHO. Regardless, I thank MsRobyn for pulling a relevant citation.
The legal issues insofar as whether Santorum’s PA school district should pay for his kids’ cyber-education are a separate matter. As is the question of political optics and hypocracy.
Those who feel that discussion of inhabitance, residency, domiciles, permanent places of abode and the like are sideshows at best can be directed to some of the more substantive allegations that I’ve linked to above.
Ok, but the comment was directed at jarjar’s post. Also, it’s the point that danceswithcats made in the OP.
Believe it or not, I don’t think these are unreasonable conclusions. I was just getting frustrated with the repeated catagorical assertions regarding residency combined with insufficient substantiation. Or that was how I saw it anyway.
I’ve conceded (1), thanks to MsRobyn’s cite. Legalities aside, (2) even seems reasonable to me provided Santorum is paying local property taxes in PA, which I assume he is. Though if I were Santorum (ick), I’d consider cutting a check to the local school board to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
There’s another possibility. Santorum may spend a large amount of time in PA in meetings and fundraisers – but he spends many of his evenings in hotel rooms.
According to the Allegheny County Tax Assessor’s office, the listed owners of the house are, in fact, Richard and Karen Garver Santorum. The property was purchased in 1997 and has a current market value of $106,000. The house has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, so it is theoretically possible to house the whole family in it. His taxes on the house are current and have been since 2003, the first year listed on the website.
So, in theory, anyway, he most likely meets the definition of “resident” as laid out in my previous cites, especially since “resident” is very broadly defined.
That said, though, there are different definitions for “resident” for different purposes. The school board was probably defining “resident” to mean “someone who occupies a house as a primary dwelling”. Military personnel can use their home state (or another state of their choosing) without occupying a house in that state; their dependents can qualify for resident tuition without actually being a resident of the state where they are stationed, but they may have to satisfy yet another definition of “resident” to qualify for state-level financial aid.
There are fourteen bazillion definitions of “resident”. It just depends on the situation and the circumstances.
The problem with that is on one hand it’s laudable, and on the other, it would be tacit admission of what his detractors have claimed all along. As I stated in a previous post, Senator Kennedy flies home to Hyannis on a regular basis, thereby justifying his representation of Massachusetts. Senator N’Absentia comes to PA when he needs a photo op, or to vote for himself. He. Doesn’t. Live. Here.
Is Pennsylvania where he resides? “I’m shocked at the number of people” who still don’t understand the problem. :rolleyes:
I asked if you were trying to convince anyone. If all you can muster is bluster, the answer would seem to be No.
Looks like **Frank ** let **Shodan ** borrow his password. Be a little more careful there, pal.
Once a-fuckin’-gain, the problem is NOT the use of his Virginia house, but the nonuse of his *Pennsylvania * house. I really don’t know how else to get through to you if you insist on being Bricker-obstinate about trying to dismiss the whole thing as partisan sniping.
I find it very odd that there isn’t a single maverick Republican in Pennsylvania who might welcome the opportunity to wrest the Republican nomination from Senator Fecalfoam, particularly when the outlook for November is shaping up to be so dire.
Must be that famous Party discipline we hear so much about.
The Dems, of course, have a vested interest in the legal residency boat remaining unrocked. Do the Greens have no presence in PA? How about the Libertarians? Earth First!?
This looks like a big case of the dog that didn’t bark.
