Doesn't Hastert have to resign now that DeLay is gone?

[Lefty48197]

After all, Hastert only got the job as Speaker of the House, because the Republicans didn't want the American public to know that they were actually electing Tom DeLay as their leader. Hastert was meant to be the figure-head, while DeLay would actually control the House Republican agenda. Hastert was supposed to project some sort of warm-puffy, jolly nice guy image.
The Republicans had learned their lessons from the Newt Gingrich era. They knew that electing an overt a$$hole as their leader would probably expose the fact that all of them are complete a$$holes.
Pretending to elect somebody like Hastert as Speaker of the House was and always has been a subterfuge meant to fool the American people. ...or at least enough of them to keep getting Republicans elected...
The politically astute Republicans knew that the ice cold razor sharp edge that Tom DeLay brought to American politics would expose their true character.

What now? DeLay is gone. The House of Representatives is without a true Speaker. Surely, we can't allow Hastert to suddenly take over as the ACTUAL Speaker of the House. The learning curve is far to steep, especially when you consider the fact that the Republicans are going to be ousted from power next January, following the November elections. We have reached a true Constitutional crisis. Does the Constitution address this scenario? i.e. where a figurehead puppet Speaker suddenly finds himself without his marionette?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Pretty soon another will pull the strings

My bets are that it will be Blunt from MO if Boehner doesn't take over.