Glenn Reynolds offers plenty of musing on this noting that, â??Of course, if Hastert isnâ??t under investigation, weâ??re back to the question of why heâ??s waging an asinine crusade against the enforcement of laws against Congressional corruption.â?? Indeed.

Well, I guess the same question, if you're going to look at it THAT way, can be asked of a relatively disinterested party taking the same position... Newt Gingrich, who from the first day, objected on what he said were constitutional grounds.

In general, it seems to me that the reason that these issues are as yet undecided, is that the conduct of the Congresscritters has never been bad enough to warrant these questions being brought to the front and center, before.

Particularly, the reason the questions have never been forced before is because we've not had people like Democrat Jefferson, perviously. Clearly, being caught with cash in the freezer is enough to end most of the arguments about his guilt or innoence in the minds of Americans, thereby requiring action.

One gets the impression that this is not a matter of covering some sort of criminal activity so much as arguing a major, unsettled constitutional question.

Personally, I'm inclined to think the search and subsequent gathering of evdience resulting from that search to be legal, and proper, but I don't think that Hastert and Gingrich (and others, for large part) arguing otherwise is indcative for anything other than an unfounded constitutional concern.

I mean, the timing of the arguments being posed sucks, but when else would such constitutional questions have come up, previously?