Call this guy persistent, but even after the Daily Herald unearthed some pretty convincing evidence from the public records showing that Dem candidate Aloys Rutagwibira does not have the required years of citizenship under the Constitution, he still insists on running as a write-in candidate, the DH reports.
Now, to be sure, Rutagwibira was not kicked off the ballot because of the citizenship issue, which was not raised by whoever challenged his nominating petitions (although I'm sure whoever that was is really kicking themselves now). But, why would anyone bother trying to run as a write-in with this issue just waiting to be raised?
TA's sources tell him that Rutagwibria is disputing the claim of the DH, apparently claiming that his years of living in the country legally years before he attained citizenship in 2006 is good enough.
As a public service, we provide the following excerpt from the actual U.S. Constitution, a document that Rutagwibira might just want to try reading someday if he wants to be in Congress:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
There's lots of ambiguous clauses to debate in the Constitution, but this is not one of them.
This has been a Team America public service announcement.
The Dem field in IL-10 sure continues to do itself proud, doesn't it....?