• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Bush Reading My Mail Now?

TragicMonkey

Poisoned Waffles
TragicMonkey
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
74,866
Location
Monkey
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail

A signing statement attached to postal legislation by
President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant. The White House denies any change in policy.
ADVERTISEMENT

The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters. But when he signed the postal reform act, Bush added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Click to expand...

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the signing statement.

In his daily briefing Snow said: "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for — in exigent circumstances — for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new."
Click to expand...

The ACLU's Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb.

"His signing statement uses language that's broader than that exception," she said, and noted that Bush used the phrase "exigent circumstances."

"The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly put this in writing if this isn't a change in policy," she said.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the flaming liberals here: if it's not a new thing, and adds no new powers, and the mail is still protected as much as it's always been, why was it added?

And why the hell are "signing statements" allowed?

Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.

Bush's statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," ABA President Michael Greco has said. The practice, he has added, "is harming the separation of powers."
Click to expand...
 
If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear. The constitution is not a suicider pact.
 
shemp said:
Yes he is, but he's bogged down with your credit card, insurance and home loan offers. And he spent three hours in the bathroom with your Victoria's Secret catalog!
Click to expand...
If he sends in the credit card offers I keep getting, does that mean his name or mine is on the card? Maybe this is how he intends to fund the war in Iraq? :confused:

What's in your wallet? :p

DR
 
TragicMonkey said:
I have to agree with the flaming liberals here: if it's not a new thing, and adds no new powers, and the mail is still protected as much as it's always been, why was it added?

And why the hell are "signing statements" allowed?
Click to expand...

Signing statements are “allowed” in much the same way drawing pictures in crayons on the backs of budget proposals is “allowed”. There is simply no rule against them. They also have about the same legal standing. Bush can no more change the laws of the land with a signing statement than he can change the laws of physics. If Bush is brought up on charges for one of his many violations of the law and attempts to hide behind one of his singing statements, he will quickly discover that they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

So what is the point of a signing statement? Well, during the Clinton years, they were used to “clarify” how the president interpreted the bills brought before him, or to explain how he would be enforcing said law. It’s really nothing more than that. He never wrote a signing statement that was in direct contradiction with the law he attached it to.

Bush is trying to give these signing statements legal authority in and of themselves, and hopes that people will let him get away with it. There are a couple of people helping him with this, most notably “Justice” Scalia, who helped start this signing statement stuff back in the Regan years. It’s a make believe, phoney-baloney presidential power.
 
Random said:
Signing statements are “allowed” in much the same way drawing pictures in crayons on the backs of budget proposals is “allowed”. There is simply no rule against them. They also have about the same legal standing. Bush can no more change the laws of the land with a signing statement than he can change the laws of physics. If Bush is brought up on charges for one of his many violations of the law and attempts to hide behind one of his singing statements, he will quickly discover that they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Click to expand...

Is this true? Perhaps someone like Brown or someone else with legit legal skills can weigh in. Has a signing statement ever been given any weight in any judicial review?
 
TragicMonkey said:
his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

exigent: adj Of such a gosh, golly, gol-danged emergency nature that it exempts one not only from a need for prior warrant authorization, but and especially also forbids any after-the-fact reviews, too, ever. The exigent problems required the extermination of Jews.
 
Random said:
Bush is trying to give these signing statements legal authority in and of themselves, and hopes that people will let him get away with it. There are a couple of people helping him with this, most notably “Justice” Scalia, who helped start this signing statement stuff back in the Regan years. It’s a make believe, phoney-baloney presidential power.
Click to expand...

Which isn't to say the executive branch can't have a legitimate beef with the laws, but if that is the case, they should either refuse to sign the law, sending it back to Congress for clarification, or sign it and take it to court.
 
pgwenthold said:
Is this true? Perhaps someone like Brown or someone else with legit legal skills can weigh in. Has a signing statement ever been given any weight in any judicial review?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but this issue almost seems too obvious to need a lawyer. Random, is exactly right. The signing statements have so little weight that I doubt that they could even be challenged. What would be the point? They just represent the president's musings on various aspects of the law he is signing.

Of course, presidential actions that implement policy can be challenged as illegal and/or unconstitutional but presidential musings are just that and he can do pretty much what he feels like with regard to them including writing op-eds or making signing statements.
 
Beerina said:
exigent: adj Of such a gosh, golly, gol-danged emergency nature that it exempts one not only from a need for prior warrant authorization, but and especially also forbids any after-the-fact reviews, too, ever. The exigent problems required the extermination of Jews.
Click to expand...
It appears that exigent problems (of communication in this thread) required a Godwin moment. ;)

Thought:

1. Requiring immediate aid or action; pressing; critical.
2. Requiring much effort or expense; demanding; exacting.

Given the Latin root (dictionary.com) -- "Exigent is derived from the present participle of Latin exigere, "to demand" -- I wonder at the linguistic and philological relationship between exigent and exaggerate. :)

DR
 
pgwenthold said:
Is this true? Perhaps someone like Brown or someone else with legit legal skills can weigh in. Has a signing statement ever been given any weight in any judicial review?
Click to expand...

Has Congress or the courts ever dealt with the executive branch not fully enforcing the laws or enforcing them per the intent of Congress?
 
pgwenthold said:
Is this true? Perhaps someone like Brown or someone else with legit legal skills can weigh in. Has a signing statement ever been given any weight in any judicial review?
Click to expand...

The President is tasked with following the laws that Congress has passed (veto power aside). He can't just arbitrarily change the law to suit his own needs whenever he feels like it. His signing statements should carry little to no weight with the Supreme Court. At best, they are used to communicate to the executive branch how he thinks the law should be carried out.
 
Bush isn't reading your mail. Low level stuff like that gets passed on to us grunts in the government trenches.

OBTW, if you win the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes, you can thank me for sending in your entry.
 
Is Bush Reading My Mail Now?

No, he tried to earlier but he couldn't understand all the big words so he threw it all out - except that Victorias' Secret catalog - he had it in the
john as earlier reported but couldn't figure out where the cloth coat section was.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I thought the Basques were a people who lived in the Pyrenees?
Click to expand...
Yes, and they're terrorists.

Recently they tried to blow up a building in downtown Madrid, but were killed when they got stuck as they all tried to get out through the same door at once.

Which goes to show you shouldn't put all of your Basques in one exit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom