[richlevy]

Originally Posted by russotto

The rule in question in the article is one of those catch-all "Conduct unbecoming..." rules which has no place in any sort of justice, as it means whatever the committee decides it does mean, after the fact.

Except that that rule is still a part of military justice.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

The military has lived with 'conduct unbecoming' for a few hundred years. If someone doesn't like it, they do not have to become a soldier. Unless someone wants to write 4000 pages of do's and don'ts, there will have to be some general rules. Obscenity and 'lewdness' are not explicitly defined in the law, but that doesn't mean you won't get arrested running down the street naked.

In a partisan atmosphere, one can accuse one side of making trumped up accusations, but the other side can be just as guilty of overlooking real offenses. Previously, in a deadlock the offense would be investigated. Under the new rules it would not be investigated. This renders the committee powerless if either side votes along party lines.

In a Congress where one party dominates, this is a huge gift to special interests.