Mark Kleiman has an excellent post
here urging the House Dems to move to expel Delay from membership in the House. He goes in some depth into an analysis of whether they could force the House to consider and actually vote on such a motion. His conclusion is that such a motion is a "Constitutionally privileged motion" and as such can be made -- and must be considered by the full House -- at any time.
(more below the fold)
In Kleiman's own words:
Would it pass? Almost certainly not. But getting all, or virtually all, of the Republicans in the House on record as supporting not just corruption but selling out to the Russians would be a triumph in itself.
And if some Republicans actually voted for the motion, so much the better. DeLay would have the choice of not retaliating and looking weak or retaliating and looking like a thug.
It gets even better:
So, if the rules say what I think they say, any Member can at any time rise, interrupting other pending business if necessary, and ask the Speaker to put the question whether to consider a motion to expel to a vote. According to the Congressional Research Service, if the moving member is the Minority Leader, the motion is debated immediately for at least one hour, after which the debate may be continued or the previous question ordered, but in any case the motion eventually comes to a vote. If another member offers the motion, the same thing happens, but at a time of the Speaker's choosing within two days rather than immediately.
What's especially lovely about this procedure (again, assuming I'm reading the rules correctly) is that the first vote isn't on the resolution of expulsion itself, but merely on whether to debate that resolution. So Republicans voting against it wouldn't even be able to defend themselvse by saying they wanted to hear the evidence first; their "No" votes would be votes against hearing the evidence.
I'm aware of -- and tend to agree with -- the current conventional wisdom in the left-blogosphere that the longer DeLay stays around slowly twisting in the wind, the better for the Dems. And actually that's why I think this would be a great tactical move -- right now the Republicans are scurrying about not sure what to do with regard to DeLay, and if the Dems just lay back and give them enough breathing room they might actually accidentally do the responsible thing for once and throw DeLay overboard sooner rather than later. What better way to unify them behind the Bug Man and ensure he's still around or at least a major campaign issue in 2006 than by turning it into a "Democrats vs. Republicans" issue?
As the saying goes, "Pass the Popcorn!!!"