Spirit of Law

“Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? … Is it the intention of law-makers that good men shall be hung ever? Are judges to interpret the law according to the letter, and not the spirit?”

-- from “A Plea for Captain John Brown” in Civil Disobedience and Other Essays by Henry David Thoreau

I am not a politically minded person. While I do my best to stay abreast of what is going on in the world and in my local community, I outwardly admit that most conversations about politics go completely over my head. I am aware that there are nuances and details and jargon related to politics that I don’t understand. I also know that I could understand better, if I put in a little effort. Yet I don’t usually bother.

In many cases, my reasons for not bothering are simple lack of interest or laziness. But part of the problem is also that when I do put in the effort to understand what is going on, I am left repeating Thoreau’s lament above. He says, “Are judges to interpret the law according to the letter, and not the spirit?” I say (somewhat less eloquently), “Wait, seriously?”

A recent and perfect example of this was Rahm Emmanuel’s effort to persuade the courts that he met the residency requirements to become mayor of Chicago. The basics of the situation were as follows: Rahm Emmanuel was a long-time resident of the city of Chicago. When Obama was elected president, Rahm accepted an appointment to be Obama’s chief of staff. He and his family moved to Washington D.C. He later left the chief of staff post so that he could run for Chicago mayor, and moved back to Chicago a few months before the election. While he was in Washington, he rented out his house in Chicago.

There is a Chicago law that states a residency requirement for those who wish to run for mayor. The law says that a mayoral candidate must have lived in the city of Chicago for at least one year leading up to the election. The only exception stated in the law is for active duty military personnel; if an active member of the military resides in Chicago before service, then lives elsewhere on military service, then immediately returns to Chicago after service, the time spent elsewhere still counts toward the residency requirement.

It seems cut and dried, at first glance. Rahm did not live in Chicago for a full year leading up to the election, and he is not a member of the military. So, no mayoral bid for Rahm, right? Not exactly. Two things made the situation more sticky.

First, Rahm argued that while he was not an active member of the military, he left Chicago for the sole purpose of serving his country, with every intention of returning afterward. He still owned a home here. He left possessions in his house. He’s said for years that he wanted to run for mayor. He never left the city for good.

Second, there is the question of the definition of being a resident. While I can’t find anything official that gives a definition, the general idea being spouted by the news was that you just have to have a legal address here. No need to actually live at the address. If that’s true, it seems that Rahm could have indeed met the requirements, given that he owns a home within the city limits. But, he rented out said home, and thus the address was not legally his.

This is the point where I got really annoyed with this situation. This was the major point of contention? The fact that he rented out his house? Everything would be ok if he was not collecting rent from someone? Wait, seriously?

I really wanted people to get out of the word by word text of the law and try to think about the reasons it was made a law in the first place. The idea, I would think, was to make sure that all the mayoral candidates knew the city and were committed to Chicago. I believe that is true of Rahm Emmanuel. Even his opponents would be hard pressed to argue that he doesn’t have a long-standing connection to this city.

And what’s more, the writers of the law even took into account that there are service-related reasons that could pull someone away from the city temporarily. The most common of these reasons would be military service, and I imagine that is why the law reads the way it does. Should the writers of the law have taken into account the remote possibility that a potential mayoral candidate would serve as the one-and-only chief of staff to the president? I guess, maybe. But I have to believe that the spirit of the law was to make exceptions for those who leave to serve the country.

The question of Rahm’s residency went through court after court after court. He was approved to go on the ballot, then the decision was overturned, then he was approved again. Rahm ended up on the ballot. Regardless of my opinions of Rahm’s agenda, which I won’t even bring up here, I think this was the right choice. It followed the spirit of the law, if not the exact words.

I return now to the fact that I am not all that politically minded, so I am aware that there may be some flaws in my arguments above. But my point was not really to argue for Rahm Emmanuel. All I’m saying is that I’m with Thoreau. I’d like to hear some more common sense coming out of the mouths of lawyers and politicians. While I understand that the laws are all that we have to go on, I also think it’s important to remember that law-makers won’t always be able to anticipate every situation to which the laws might apply in the future.

I would also like to say, for the record, that I think the editorial style guide that we use at work should be interpreted with the same flexibility and common sense. But that’s another story, for another blog.