# How Dare They Not Prosecute Tom Delay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280 "2010-08-24T12:43:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/161 "2010-08-30T16:57:09Z")
Well, sure, DeLay is a lying scum until he says something that supports your thesis! Lefty hypocrisy! Everybody come see the lefty hypocrisy! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/162 "2010-08-30T17:01:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > One has nothing to do with the other. It’s as though you grabbed things that sound the same and tossed them together. Do you not understand any of the basic concepts in play here? Seriously? > > They have to do with the discussion at hand. It shows that despite your rhetoric about being fair minded while bemoaning liberal partisanship you are as partisan as they come in these discussions. You are defending the indefensible and doing it by splitting hairs and playing games (such as ignoring context when it is critical to the discussion). Repeat after me: 1. Courts 2. Legislature Repeat until you understand. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/163 "2010-08-30T17:02:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I don’t recall any statements from Tom DeLay admitting that K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal. > > > > Cite? > > I found this (bolding mine): > > > [@](#): > > > > Lobbyists were invited into DeLay’s office and shown their place in “friendly” or “unfriendly” columns. ( **“If you want to play in our revolution,” DeLay told The Washington Post, “you have to live by our rules.”** ) > > SOURCE: [Welcome to the Machine | Washington Monthly](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html) So it is your allegation that putting lobbyists into two columns is an attempt to skirt the law, and is only technically legal? I don’t see any admission from Delay that amounts to what you claim. Got anything better? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/164 "2010-08-30T17:09:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I don’t recall any statements from Tom DeLay admitting that K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal. > > > > Cite? > > I found this (bolding mine): > > > [@](#): > > > > Lobbyists were invited into DeLay’s office and shown their place in “friendly” or “unfriendly” columns. ( **“If you want to play in our revolution,” DeLay told The Washington Post, “you have to live by our rules.”** ) Another was to oust Democrats from trade associations, what DeLay and Norquist dubbed “the K Street Strategy.” Sometimes revolutionary zeal got the better of them. One seminal moment, never before reported, occurred in 1996 when Haley Barbour, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee, organized a meeting of the House leadership and business executives. “They assembled several large company CEOs and made it clear to them that they were expected to purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with Republicans,” says a veteran steel lobbyist. The Republicans also demanded more campaign money and help for the upcoming election. The meeting descended into a shouting match, and the CEOs, most of them Republicans, stormed out. > > > > SOURCE: [Welcome to the Machine | Washington Monthly](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html) What law does that “skirt?” What law is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/165 "2010-08-30T17:10:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > They have to do with the discussion at hand. It shows that despite your rhetoric about being fair minded while bemoaning liberal partisanship you are as partisan as they come in these discussions. You are defending the indefensible and doing it by splitting hairs and playing games (such as ignoring context when it is critical to the discussion). > > Repeat after me: > > 1. Courts > 2. Legislature > > Repeat until you understand. And again with the deflection. I cannot believe your reading comprehension lacks so badly. I’ll repeat: I asked you in the thread on EP analysis if you were ok with it as it stands. I have asked here repeatedly if you were ok with the status quo. You have diligently ignored answering those questions. You are diligently ignoring the question again. The courts are assessing something passed by the legislature. A bill that need not be the “best”. The discussion IS about the laws being passed (be it Prop-8 or the CNMI). Whether the courts are looking at it or the legislature or we are looking at it. Waiting eagerly to see you dance and evade yet again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/166 "2010-08-30T17:17:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Repeat after me: > > > > 1. Courts > > 2. Legislature > > > > Repeat until you understand. > > And again with the deflection. > > I cannot believe your reading comprehension lacks so badly. > > I’ll repeat: > > I asked you in the thread on EP analysis if you were ok with it as it stands. I have asked here repeatedly if you were ok with the status quo. > > You have diligently ignored answering those questions. > > You are diligently ignoring the question again. I’m generally OK with EP analysis, because I think generally it’s consistent with our notions of self-governance that the legislature, not the courts, make substantive law. There are individual instances where I don;t think the best result is reached – in other words, if i were King, I would impose a different result. But I recognize that the system is imperfect, and believe it’s the best possible overall system, even if it sometimes produces flawed results. > [@](#): > > The courts are assessing something passed by the legislature. A bill that need not be the “best”. The discussion IS about the laws being passed (be it Prop-8 or the CNMI). Whether the courts are looking at it or the legislature or we are looking at it. > > Waiting eagerly to see you dance and evade yet again. So now I have answered your question. It has nothing to do with this debate, because the two actors are in such different roles. A lawmaker is the one that creates laws. He SHOULD be asking if his laws are the best to achieve a given result. The court doesn’t get to ask that same question, because then the court would be a super-legislature, overriding the real legislature whenever it disagreed. So it’s perfectly correct to simultaneously imagine, about a legislator’s decisions, the internal dialog “Is this the best possible way to go about this? No? Then I won’t do it!” -AND- To imagine a reviewing court asking, “Is this law rationally related to a legitimate government interest? It is? Then, even though it’s far form the best solution in my opinion, it’s legit!” No conflict. Both are exactly the right things to do. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/167 "2010-08-30T17:30:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > I found this (bolding mine): > > What law does that “skirt?” What law is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal? I had a sneaking suspicion you’d use “technically” to dance around. What does “technically” legal mean? For the purposes here this brings us full circle to the OP. I am not aware of all the laws and ethical rules congrescritters must abide by (and I think Congressional ethics rules are relevant here as well… **Bricker** can do things that are “legal” but would get him disbarred as an ethics violation…congresscritters presumably are beholden to ethical rules as well). What the article in the OP is on about it looking at some patently unethical behavior and noting the foxes are in charge of the hen house. Go figure they do not make rules to bust themselves for these actions. Clearly my above cite shows a pay-to-play mentality. They flat out told lobbying firms and corporations to pony up more money or they would not get favorable results. They insisted on what people K-Street had to hire and blocked access to those who didn’t do what they wanted. But hey…not illegal so no problem right? :rolleyes: FWIW seems others felt this went too far and tried (and failed) to address it as a legal matter: > [@](#): > > When the K Street project was at its height several years ago, Ms. Sloan said she tried to find a lobbyist willing to sue former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who resigned from Congress last year. > > “I couldn’t find anyone who was willing to do this because they were so worried about whether they’d ever get another job in Washington,” she said. > > Still, Ms. Sloan said Mr. Casey’s proposal had strong symbolic value, and even the threat of criminal charges could be enough to dissuade lawmakers from trying to influence hiring decisions at private firms. > > Read more: [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/168 "2010-08-30T17:44:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I had a sneaking suspicion you’d use “technically” to dance around. > > What does “technically” legal mean? Ask [The Second Stone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12855845&postcount=155). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/169 "2010-08-30T17:45:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > What law does that “skirt?” What law is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal? > > I had a sneaking suspicion you’d use “technically” to dance around. > > What does “technically” legal mean? > > For the purposes here this brings us full circle to the OP. I am not aware of all the laws and ethical rules congrescritters must abide by (and I think Congressional ethics rules are relevant here as well… **Bricker** can do things that are “legal” but would get him disbarred as an ethics violation…congresscritters presumably are beholden to ethical rules as well). What the article in the OP is on about it looking at some patently unethical behavior and noting the foxes are in charge of the hen house. Go figure they do not make rules to bust themselves for these actions. > > Clearly my above cite shows a pay-to-play mentality. They flat out told lobbying firms and corporations to pony up more money or they would not get favorable results. They insisted on what people K-Street had to hire and blocked access to those who didn’t do what they wanted. > > But hey…not illegal so no problem right? :rolleyes: > > FWIW seems others felt this went too far and tried (and failed) to address it as a legal matter: > > > [@](#): > > > > When the K Street project was at its height several years ago, Ms. Sloan said she tried to find a lobbyist willing to sue former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who resigned from Congress last year. > > > > “I couldn’t find anyone who was willing to do this because they were so worried about whether they’d ever get another job in Washington,” she said. > > > > Still, Ms. Sloan said Mr. Casey’s proposal had strong symbolic value, and even the threat of criminal charges could be enough to dissuade lawmakers from trying to influence hiring decisions at private firms. > > > > Read more: [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc) OK, what law or House ethical rule does that “skirt?” What law or House ethical rule is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal? As a reminder, here is the original claim: > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > By his own statements the K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/170 "2010-08-30T17:47:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not aware of all the laws and ethical rules congrescritters must abide by (and I think Congressional ethics rules are relevant here as well. So you don’t know what law or ethical rule Delay broke, or didn’t break but came close, but you are sure there were some. And you claim Delay said so explicitly, but you cannot seem to come up with any examples where he did. But Delay is scum because he made lobbyists sit in two rows in his office. Well, **I’m** convinced. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/171 "2010-08-30T17:50:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > I am not aware of all the laws and ethical rules congrescritters must abide by (and I think Congressional ethics rules are relevant here as well. > > So you don’t know what law or ethical rule Delay broke, or didn’t break but came close, but you are sure there were some. > > And you claim Delay said so explicitly, but you cannot seem to come up with any examples where he did. > > But Delay is scum because he made lobbyists sit in two rows in his office. > > Well, **I’m** convinced. Whack-a-Mole didn’t make the original claim that DeLay’s own statements established the “skirting” of laws; [The Second Stone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12855845&postcount=155) did. W-a-M has since sought to defend the statement, but it’s unclear to me if he endorses it or not. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/172 "2010-08-30T17:58:09Z")
The cite about the lobbyists sitting in two rows is a response to this request: > [@](#): > > I don’t recall any statements from Tom DeLay admitting that K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal. > > Cite? It seems pretty clear that **Wahck-a-Mole** was attempting to substantiate **The Second Stone** s’ claim - with what success, we have seen. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/173 "2010-08-30T18:13:40Z")
I already answered that I am not versed in the relevant laws or ethics rules covering Congress much less what was in effect at that time. I suspect that would be a large research task. What I am saying is the behavior, to me, appears fundamentally unethical and I would hope be illegal. It is the problem the article in the OP was getting at. You have these jokers policing themselves and it is not surprising that they are less than zealous to do that. My real dismay comes at people here defending this. We stipulated long ago no one was looking for extra-judicial punishment but we would like to see rules/laws put in place to prevent this in the future (and I am aware this covers liberals and conservatives…as it should). Do you really want a pay-to-play government? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/174 "2010-08-30T18:34:25Z")
Ok…how does the US Constitution strike you for “skirting” the law? _“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and **to petition the Government for a redress of grievances**.”_ Seems to me these guys demanding money up front and insisting you hire their guys is a substantial barrier to being able to approach our government. Remember this is not just one guy doing this (that is bad enough) but literally barring you from access to the majority you need unless you play along. If that is legal it is shocking. I’d bet anything if a client hired **Bricker** to lobby congress for them he’d be furious if the democrats told him he had better start writing bigger checks to the Democratic campaign funds and that he had to hire substantial staff that are distinctly liberal (which of course they can provide…some former staffers and others they owe favors to need some $400k/year cush jobs on **Bricker’s** dime). If he doesn’t he can go pound sand because all doors will be closed to him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/175 "2010-08-30T18:50:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > FWIW seems others felt this went too far and tried (and failed) to address it as a legal matter: > > > [@](#): > > > > When the K Street project was at its height several years ago, Ms. Sloan said she tried to find a lobbyist willing to sue former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who resigned from Congress last year. > > > > “I couldn’t find anyone who was willing to do this because they were so worried about whether they’d ever get another job in Washington,” she said. > > > > Still, Ms. Sloan said Mr. Casey’s proposal had strong symbolic value, and even the threat of criminal charges could be enough to dissuade lawmakers from trying to influence hiring decisions at private firms. > > > > Read more: [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754303-84.stm#ixzz0y6wjHWMc) When you say, “…tried (and failed)…” it seems you’re referring to the failure to find anyone to sue. But the article you linked to also describes a failure: Bob Casey’s amendment to the ethics rules to prevent such a situation was ultimately withdrawn (See 100th Congress, S.AMDT.56 to S.1) So when you describe all this as “technically illegal” and “skirting the law,” you evoke a feeling that, if only lawmakers had thought to include the conduct, they would have. Yet when the majority Democratic Congress in 2007 considered these changes, they didn’t adopt them. So you ask us to believe that it was the single perfidity of Tom Delay… when it seems that a good chunk of the Congress felt that these things should not be illegal either. Now, you may say, “Yeah, they’re all a bunch of crooks!” But that’s not the thesis here. Here we are discussing whether DeLay is scum, a terrible example. And the evidence is that he tried to influence lobbyist hiring, which should be illegal. But Congress didn’t agree. So why is it just DeLay, then? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/176 "2010-08-30T19:01:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So why is it just DeLay, then? Yep, I think most of them are crooks and democrats do it too and I don’t like it either. This is why I want better/stronger laws and ethics rules put in place. DeLay is among the worst of the worst though. Akin to me hating someone who murders someone but having a special level of hatred for the likes of John Wayne Gacy. DeLay took it to a new level. > [@](#): > > MONTAGNE: Now lobbyists, Juan, have been in Washington for a long time. Is this really–this Republican effort really all that different from how things worked with Democrats when they were in the majority? > > WILLLIAMS: Renee, yes and no. You know, I hate to be like that, but scandals like Abscam and the Keating Five involved Democrats. And these scandals attached to individual members of Congress, however. Under Democrats, there wasn’t this formalized structure I’ve been describing of how lobbyists and members work together. People who keep an eye on congressional scandals, people like Professor Dennis Thompson at Harvard, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, they say it’s the scope of the scandal as a way that business got done for everyone across the board that makes it a potentially bigger event than anything we’ve seen before. > > SOURCE: [The K Street Project and Jack Abramoff : NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5148982) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/177 "2010-08-30T19:19:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ok…how does the US Constitution strike you for “skirting” the law? > > _“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and **to petition the Government for a redress of grievances**.”_ > > Seems to me these guys demanding money up front and insisting you hire their guys is a substantial barrier to being able to approach our government. Remember this is not just one guy doing this (that is bad enough) but literally barring you from access to the majority you need unless you play along. > > If that is legal it is shocking. What law did Congress make that violated anyone’s right to petition? Jesus, **whack-a-mole** , you’re certainly inventive. So here’s a little thought experiment: Nancy Deeansee, a strong proponent of abortion rights for women, is elected to Congress. She tells her staff, “I don’t even want to see a pro-life lobbyist walk through that door. Those people hate women and are in it only to see women degraded and suffer. If you’ve worked for a pro-life lobby cause, you get no traction with me.” Has she violated the Constitution’s guarantee? (Usually I’d just let you answer, but I’ll help you along. Hint: No.) Luckily, I found a good [cut-and-paste](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con012.pdf) source: > [@](#): > > The right of petition took its rise from the modest provision > made for it in chapter 61 of Magna Carta (1215). To this meagre > beginning are traceable, in some measure, Parliament itself and its > procedures in the enactment of legislation, the equity jurisdiction > of the Lord Chancellor, and proceedings against the Crown by ‘‘petition > of right.’’ Thus, while the King summoned Parliament for the > purpose of supply, the latter—but especially the House of Commons—petitioned the King for a redress of grievances as its price > for meeting the financial needs of the Monarch, and as it increased > in importance it came to claim the right to dictate the form of the > King’s reply, until, in 1414, Commons declared itself to be ‘‘as well > assenters as petitioners.’’ Two hundred and fifty years later, in > 1669, Commons further resolved that every commoner in England > possessed ‘‘the inherent right to prepare and present petitions’’ to > it ‘‘in case of grievance,’’ and of Commons ‘‘to receive the same’’ and > to judge whether they were ‘‘fit’’ to be received. Finally Chapter 5 > of the Bill of Rights of 1689 asserted the right of the subjects to > petition the King and ‘‘all commitments and prosecutions for such > petitioning to be illegal. > . > . > . > The right of petition recognized by the First Amendment first > came into prominence in the early 1830’s, when petitions against > slavery in the District of Columbia began flowing into Congress in > a constantly increasing stream, which reached its climax in the > winter of 1835. Finally on January 28, 1840, the House adopted as > a standing rule: ‘‘That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other > paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, > or any State or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, > shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way > whatever.’’ Because of efforts of John Quincy Adams, this rule was > repealed five years later. 213 For many years now the rules of the > House of Representatives have provided that members having petitions > to present may deliver them to the Clerk and the petitions, > except such as in the judgment of the Speaker are of an obscene > or insulting character, shall be entered on the Journal and the > Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such record to the official reporters > of debates for publication in the Record. 214 Even so, petitions > for the repeal of the espionage and sedition laws and against military > measures for recruiting resulted, in World War I, in imprisonment. > 215 Processions for the presentation of petitions in the United > States have not been particularly successful. In 1894 General > Coxey of Ohio organized armies of unemployed to march on Washington > and present petitions, only to see their leaders arrested for > unlawfully walking on the grass of the Capitol. The march of the > veterans on Washington in 1932 demanding bonus legislation was > defended as an exercise of the right of petition. The Administration, > however, regarded it as a threat against the Constitution and > called out the army to expel the bonus marchers and burn their > camps. Marches and encampments have become more common > since, but the results have been mixed. Nothing in the line of “right to petition” cases supports the inference that the Constitution prevents an individual representative from deciding to meet, or not meet, with anyone for any reason whatsoever. There’s nothing even close. So if this “skirts” the law and is “technically” illegal, do you have any cite of the Constitution ever, even once, being interpreted in a way that would show that closeness, that “skirting?” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/178 "2010-08-30T19:57:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What law did Congress make that violated anyone’s right to petition? > > Jesus, **whack-a-mole** , you’re certainly inventive. > > So here’s a little thought experiment: Nancy Deeansee, a strong proponent of abortion rights for women, is elected to Congress. She tells her staff, “I don’t even want to see a pro-life lobbyist walk through that door. Those people hate women and are in it only to see women degraded and suffer. If you’ve worked for a pro-life lobby cause, you get no traction with me.” > > Has she violated the Constitution’s guarantee? > > (Usually I’d just let you answer, but I’ll help you along. Hint: No.) > Nothing in the line of “right to petition” cases supports the inference that the Constitution prevents an individual representative from deciding to meet, or not meet, with anyone for any reason whatsoever. There’s nothing even close. > > So if this “skirts” the law and is “technically” illegal, do you have any cite of the Constitution ever, even once, being interpreted in a way that would show that closeness, that “skirting?” There is a big difference between Nancy and Tom. Nancy just declined to see you…fine. Now, if Nancy said if you want to see her write a big check to her re-election campaign and hire several of her former staffers she’ll let you in the door. That is a whole other thing. Oh, also add that Nancy will make sure you cannot talk to any member of her caucus because she will put you on a black list. So pay up or forget it. Hardly the same thing. As for a first amendment grounds I think a clever attorney could make the case. I am not persuaded that Congress gets a pass because they did not pass a law preventing you from approaching them. They write the laws, such a law would be unconstitutional and they know it so just effectively achieve the same thing without actually writing it down. Imagine a condo that has no law/rule that prevents black people from moving in but the home owners association just happens to never let a black person move in. That is ok in **Brickerland**? Pretty sure that is not kosher and they do not get away with it because they never actually wrote a rule explicitly saying no black people. Further, the law considers collusion in other areas to be illegal. Nancy deciding for herself is one thing. Nancy colluding with the rest of her caucus to bar you access to the government is something else entirely. These guys were actively blocking access to the government unless you did what they wanted. I’d be hard pressed to imagine the SCOTUS shrugging and saying sure, nothing wrong with that. Remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So again I ask you **Bricker** , would you be ok with writing Congressman Whack-a-Mole a fat check for my re-election campaign and hiring my buddies **Diogenes the Cynic** and **Der Tris** into your firm for $400k/year each (plus perks and an expense account and full benefits)? If you don’t you may as well go home and blog about whatever it is you’re pushing because that is about all there is left to you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/179 "2010-08-30T20:23:48Z")
I get it now, took a while, but I see the point! About why DeLay felt it necessary to block any consideration of the bill that might help the Saipan sweater-shoppers! Say you come across an injured guy, bleeding to death. Naturally, your first thought is to apply some sort of bandage. Tom DeLay arrives, and prevents you from applying the bandage, because it wouldn’t be effective enough. And of course, the guy continues to bleed. But that doesn’t matter, its not the important, dispositive issue! Tom DeLay prevented an ineffective remedy from being applied, and this is a good thing, and whether or not the guy bleeds to death isn’t important, because its the principle of the thing that matters! No, wait, that can’t be it. That would be stupid. Darn. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/180 "2010-08-30T20:31:15Z")
No, wait, that can’t be it. What it must be, is that DeLay didn’t want these ineffective things done because it would interfere with his much more effective solution, which he was pressing for, moving heaven and earth, mighty, mighty efforts being made… **Bricker** just forgot to tell us about those wonderful, effective remedies that DeLay was pressing for! Well, now would be a real good time to do it! Better late that never! \*\*Bricker? \*\* Whenever you’re ready! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280.md?page=10)