Assignment2: It May Not Work InPolitics
Strayer/ North Raleigh
ItMay Not Work in Politics
Ethicsin Congress has been an issue for as long as there has been aCongress. This paper will consist of Congressional ethics indictmentviolations and the outcome of the verdict in the charges ofCongressman Tom Delay. Additionally, this paper will discuss why ithas not been successful for third party candidates to win theelection as President in the history of voting. What’s more, thisessay will also discuss the roles of U.S. federal and stateauthorities in addressing terrorism.
TomDelay, a former Texas congressman, served in Texas’ 22ndCongressional District from 1984 until 2006. Tom Delay served ashouse majority leader from 2003 to 2005. In 2005, Delay was indictedon criminal charges that equated to Congressional ethics violations.Tom Delay, with some of his closest political aides, was indicted ofmoney laundering in Texas. He was also found guilty of usingcorporate money to fund state elections in Texas in 2002 (Rep.Tom Delay, 2002).Moreover, Delay was charged with corrupting public officials throughhis ties to political lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Tom was forced toresign from his position as majority leader of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives on the 7thof January, 2006. He officially resigned from Congress on June 9,2006, following pressure from fellow Congressmen. Tom Delay wassentenced to serve three years in prison in 2011, but was free onbail as he was appealing his sentence. On the 19thof September, 2013, the ruling was overturned by the Texas Court ofAppeal citing “insufficient evidence” to sustain Tom’ssentencing. Just like that, Tom Delay was acquitted on October 1,2014 (Tribune, n.d.).
Ido not agree with the court’s verdict for one reason. Some of hisaides pleaded guilty to the corruption and money laundering chargesand were prosecuted. For instance, Tony Rudy, who served as TomDelay’s Deputy Chief of staff until 2001, pleaded guilty on the31stof March, 2006. Tom Delay resigned from the Congress only three daysafter Rudy confessed to conspiracy to corrupt public officialsoriginating from his ties to Delay and Abramoff (Tribune, n.d.). Inthis regard, there is absolutely no reason why Delay had to beacquitted for the lack of “sufficient evidence,” yet his aidespleaded guilty and were charged for the offences they allegedlycommitted cooperatively. Nonetheless, I agree with Delay’sCongressional suspension because the Congress is a house ofdiscipline. Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution of the USprovides that each House (Congress) may punish its members fordisorderly behavior, and, with two-thirds votes, expel a member (Rep.Tom Delay, 2002).Tom’s suspension from the House of Representatives was justifiedbecause his actions equaled unethical practices that are punishableby suspension from the reputable house. For example, Congressmen likeJoe Wilson (2011), Charles Rangel (2010), and many others have in thepast been expelled from the House of Representatives for conductingthemselves unethically. To this effect, the penalty of Delay’ssuspension from the House is defensible.
Thepolitical rules that govern elections in the US are far from neutral.Per se, they form barriers that deter the emergence and growth ofmore than two political parties in the Unites States (Conroy, 2013).The constitutional system of the Unites States is harsh in itsdiscrimination against third parties that fail to get the popularvote plurality in all the states. The Electoral College system of theUS does not favor regionally popular third party candidates to gainpluralities nationally. For example, Conroy (2013) notes that in1948, Storm Thurmond, States’ Rights nominee, was denied nationalplurality after obtaining 12.3% of the Electoral College vote with2.7% national popular vote. Second, it is hard for a third partycandidate to be successful in winning a presidential election becauseof strict ballot access limitations. Democrats and Republicans, asConroy (2013) explains, have a labyrinth of burdensome regulationsthat make it difficult for minor parties and independent candidatesto gain a spot on the presidential election ballot. As a result,third party candidates wishing to vie for presidency must overcomedifferent sets of politically bureaucratic obstacles. This makes ithard for third party contenders to vie for presidency even thewell-financed ones. For example, in 1980, John Anderson was deniedthe chance to vie for presidency after he lost in his state’sprimaries. His dreams were further crushed by the US law prohibitingpresidential underdogs in primaries from belonging to either of thetwo nationally acknowledged political parties (Conroy, 2013). Thesetwo reasons clarify why a third party candidate has never beensuccessful in winning a presidential election in the Unites States.
Federaland State Authority
Itis the opinion of Singhand Krupakar (2014)that the greatest challenge facing the United States today isterrorism. In order to ensure the most successful and efficientplacement of resources to fight terrorism, each level of governmentunderstands the importance of synergy. The principle of synergy ismost important when discussing the roles of the state and federalauthorities in addressing terrorism. Working together, the authorsnote that the state and federal authorities are responsible for theconcepts of intelligence, diplomatic, and military, in identificationand battling terrorist entities like ISIS and ISIL. Bothorganizations are responsible for the developing and implementinganti-terror strategic visions and disseminating them to relevantauthorities. Intrinsically, state and federal authorities playreflecting roles in the management of terrorism. There are no U.S.Constitutional constraints to the federal and state’s responses tothe issue of terrorism because both the state and federal authoritiesare equally rallying against terrorism and radicalization.
Conroy,S. (2013, December). Why the Third-Party Dream Remains Just That |RealClearPolitics. Retrieved September 11, 2016, fromhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/12/why_the_third-party_dream_remains_just_that_120927.html
Rep.Tom Delay, ethics investigation, 1999. (2002). Congress and thenation, 1997-2001 (Vol.10).Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved fromhttp://library.cqpress.com/cqpac/catn97-97-6356-326150
Singh,S., & Krupakar, J. (2014). Indo–US Cooperation in CounteringTerrorism: Challenges and Limitations. StrategicAnalysis,38(5),703-716. doi:10.1080/09700161.2014.941218
Tribune,T. T. (n.d.). Tribpedia: Tom Delay | The Texas Tribune. RetrievedSeptember 11, 2016, fromhttps://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/tom-delay/about/