quote: 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.
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."
"The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress," said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?"
Beeson said the group is planning to file a request for information on how this exception will be used and to ask whether it has already been used to open mail.
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."
Postal Vice President Tom Day added: "As has been the long-standing practice, first-class mail is protected from unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody. Nothing in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changes this protection. The president is not exerting any new authority."
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who guided the measure through the Senate, called on Bush to clarify his intent.
The bill, Collins said, "does nothing to alter the protections of privacy and civil liberties provided by the Constitution and other federal laws."
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and our federal criminal rules require prior judicial approval before domestic sealed mail can be searched," she said.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized Bush's action.
"Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November," Schumer said.
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.
In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, postal officials are allowed by law to open letters that can't be delivered as addressed -- but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.
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."
The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News.
The full signing statement said:
"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
ex·i·gent /ˈɛksɪdʒənt/ –adjective 1. requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing. 2. requiring a great deal, or more than is reasonable.
So the gov can only open a letter in exigent circumstances and the gov decides if the circumstance is exigent. How convenient. This is lacking checks and balances imho.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone reasonably say that, if agents had discovered the anthrax sender, they couldn't intercept his mail without a warrant?
Who would make that decision? The agents on the scene.
As to this: "the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection." Here, the statement is saying that this law will be interpreted as not intentionally overriding an existing law. Courts make this judgment all the time - did Congress intend to override old law X, or did Congress intend old law X to remain an exception to the broad language of the new law? It happens with most new laws, even thought it's almost never publicized. It's common, and the executive branch must make this distinction as well. Otherwise there would never be a case and controversy that would allow a court to rule on the issue.
quote:So the gov can only open a letter in exigent circumstances and the gov decides if the circumstance is exigent. How convenient. This is lacking checks and balances imho.
Who else is supposed to make this decision? We have exigent circumstance exceptions for all kinds of things - for killing someone, for searching a car, for arresting a suspect, and for stopping traffic. Further, many statutes that do not have explicit exceptions for exigent circumstances have had such exceptions read into them by courts.
And, again, the courts doing so are responding to exercises of the exigent circumstances exception that the executive have already used. A court doesn't - and, in our country, is not allowed to - rule in the abstract. When courts uphold an exigent circumstance action, they are reviewing an executive decision already made. There's nothing unprecedented about interpreting the law in this way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When courts uphold an exigent circumstance action, they are reviewing an executive decision already made. There's nothing unprecedented about interpreting the law in this way.
I think that given the subtext here, of an administration that has engaged in and lied about surveillance of its population in ways that are not open to review by independent bodies specifically going out of its way using a manner that, according to many, they have been greatly abusing, to make the point that they are going to be doing this, makes this somewhat troubling.
I don't see what the problem could be to pressing them to make clear exactly what they mean by this and what boundaries they recognize because of it. Of course, given the bald-faced lies they've told about other forms of domestic surveillance, I think that their answers may be of limited value anyway, absent them being under oath. If we had a clear and somewhat binding reason to believe that these actions would be taken with oversight and review, I think very few people would be troubled by this. But, with this administration, I don't think that they are incorporating these things in their operations is a safe assumption.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, your comments are most likely the truth, honest and understandable.
However, we are looking at an administration that used the simple phrase in the law Congress passed about all neccesary actions in regards to authorizing the war in Iraq to tap phones without warrants, lock away at least one US citizen as an Enemy Combatant with out due process, and stretch as much power as possible.
So people have been trained to take vague and open ended legal phrases made into law by the President and determine not what it is supposed to do, or what it most likely will do, but what is the worst that it can do. That is the only way to be sure that someone in power doesn't reach for what would be considered a legally allowed power under the law as most broadly read.
Its the same stategy that our founding fathers used when they set up this whole--balance of power thing.
So where you read "exigent circumstances" to mean "a anthrax letter" and the whole signing statement to read, "We are just adjusting the law to include powers that have always been held by the government, but that the laziness of Congress didn't include" some of us ask for clarification.
Why the term Exigent? If the use of the addendum to this law is to safely remove dangerous mail, why not state that? If the use is to keep the public safe, why not state that? Instead we have a word that is open to interpretation. Could Exigent circumstances include political expedience? stopping the leaking of illegal activities? Allowing the intimidation of political enemies?
News recently emerged that our when Rhenquist was nominated for the Supreme Court, and later nominated as Cheif Justice, two different presidents (Nixon then Reagan) had the FBI dig up dirt on people who were witnesses called opposed to the nomination. Could Exigent Circumstances be something similar to this?
But the biggest problem I have with the Signing Statement is how legal is it in the first place. If it pushes to far it clearly violates the separation of powers. Will they, and can they, be tested in court?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see what the problem could be to pressing them to make clear exactly what they mean by this and what boundaries they recognize because of it.
I don't either, which is why I didn't advocate that anyone not press them to make clear exactly what they mean by this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the biggest problem I have with the Signing Statement is how legal is it in the first place. If it pushes to far it clearly violates the separation of powers. Will they, and can they, be tested in court?
What is there to test in court? Nothing. It's a statement of how the President interprets the law. When that interpretation is used, the interpretation will be tested in court. Just as it would be if the signing statement did not exist.
quote:Why the term Exigent?
Because it's a word with extensive legal meaning in the concept of search and siezure.
quote:If the use of the addendum to this law is to safely remove dangerous mail, why not state that?
Well, they did. It's right there in the signing statement.
quote:Could Exigent circumstances include political expedience? stopping the leaking of illegal activities? Allowing the intimidation of political enemies?
No, it couldn't. I mean, someone might attempt to say that, but it wouldn't hold up in court.
quote:News recently emerged that our when Rhenquist was nominated for the Supreme Court, and later nominated as Cheif Justice, two different presidents (Nixon then Reagan) had the FBI dig up dirt on people who were witnesses called opposed to the nomination. Could Exigent Circumstances be something similar to this?
No, and this signing statement has no bearing on that anyway. With or without it, the same arguments would be made.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Did someone suggest that you did? Cause I didn't.
---
Actually, looking at it, you know, this is one of the signing statements that I think maybe he should be impeached for, where Congress says "You can't do X." and the Presidnet says "I'm going to interpret that as saying I can do X." using a highly questionable rationale. So, I would still have a problem with this, even if it included oversight provisions.
I kinda wish Congress would exercise their ability to pull the financial choke chain to get him to stop doing this, but that's even less likely than the impeachment, so there you go.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, someone might attempt to say that, but it wouldn't hold up in court.
Unless there were a law authorizing it as part of "foreign intelligence collection," which I believe there currently IS; anyone mailing someone who's suspected to be part of Al Qaeda, even if that person is a citizen ( if I'm interpreting existing law correctly -- and as a non-lawyer, I may well not be), can expect to have their mail opened.
It does appear that the signing statement is deliberately undoing at least part of the intent of the law, by justifying the opening of domestic mail "where authorized by law" for surveillance purposes; since the new law is deliberately intended to prevent opening mail for surveillance purposes with a warrant, and was (I suspect) written at least partially in response to the Bush Administration's general reluctance to obtain warrants for anything, and because the Bush Administration currently interprets existing law to say that warrants are NOT necessary for much surveillance related to international terrorist activity, the statement actually says: "In your face, people who think we need warrants to spy on citizens who talk to terrorists!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did someone suggest that you did? Cause I didn't.
Did I suggest that you did? Cause I didn't. I clarified my position, in case the juxtaposition of your statement next to a quotation of mine was construed that way by others, and my subsequent silence interpreted as accepting the implied characterization.
quote:Actually, looking at it, you know, this is one of the signing statements that I think maybe he should be impeached for, where Congress says "You can't do X." and the Presidnet says "I'm going to interpret that as saying I can do X." using a highly questionable rationale.
Do you think Congress intended to override any existing exceptions for foreign intelligence? Do you think Congress intended to ban opening mail in exigent circumstances? What's your evidence of this.
If questionable legal interpretation is grounds for impeachment, then should Clinton have been impeached for asserting the same kind of surveillance authority over international calls that Bush has asserted? Should every president who had a decision overturned by SCOTUS have been impeached?
Using that standard, the authors of Roe v. Wade should have been impeached.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does appear that the signing statement is deliberately undoing at least part of the intent of the law, by justifying the opening of domestic mail "where authorized by law" for surveillance purposes; since the new law is deliberately intended to prevent opening mail for surveillance purposes with a warrant, and was (I suspect) written at least partially in response to the Bush Administration's general reluctance to obtain warrants for anything, and because the Bush Administration currently interprets existing law to say that warrants are NOT necessary for much surveillance related to international terrorist activity, the statement actually says: "In your face, people who think we need warrants to spy on citizens who talk to terrorists!"
You're making a HUGE and unwarranted assumption that Congress intended to override that law. Can you cite some evidence? I suspect if it were citeable, it would have already been cited.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, what is the equivalent of a signing statement in the Canadian government? (or any other government)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If questionable legal interpretation is grounds for impeachment
That's not what I said. The grounds for impeachment is the dismantling of the separation of powers represented by an executive branch that has issued more signing statements than all other previous administrations combined, many of which take the form "No, we're not going to obey the explicit instructions in the laws that the legislative branch passed." This is a major issue, strongly decried by members of both parties in Congress, including the till yesterday, Republican head of the Senate Judiciary committee. It's a serious issue and, if you are going to argue against what I said, I think you'd do better to not use superficial dismissals.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Out of curiosity, what is the equivalent of a signing statement in the Canadian government?
Royal Assent by the Queen or the Queen's representative (Governer-General), which is basically a rubber-stamp nod to tradition.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, the law justified opening mail under specific, delimited circumstances. Congress passed this with the intent to provide an even stronger circumscription so that vaguely expressed national security would be ruled out for warrantless opening of mail.
I have difficulty imagining a situation where getting a warrant to open mail, absent a immediate threat like a ticking bomb, which was already provided for, would be at all onerous. Take, for example, the anthrax example. What possible need would there be to open that immediately, as opposed to isolating it and taking the brief amount of time it would take to get a warrant?
edit: If the Bush administration thinks that such a situation exists, however, there is a definied procedure as to how to institute a program to do so. Propose it to Congress, provide arguments why it is neccesary, and let them set it up, with oversight. Saying "Nope, we're not going to listen to you." and doing whatever the heck you can get away with is not the way, to me, that these things should be done.
Can you explain to me, Dag, why, if they think that doing this is important, the signing statement way of doing it is prefereable to the legislative option?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The grounds for impeachment is the dismantling of the separation of powers
Roe v. Wade certainly dismantled a considerable portion of the separation of powers as they existed at that time, too.
quote:It's a serious issue and, if you are going to argue against what I said, I think you'd do better to not use superficial dismissals.
It's not superficial, it highlights exactly why I think your call for impeachment is ill-founded. The signing statements announce the President's interpretation of the law. The President interprets the law every single day he is in office. The interpretation isn't the impeachable offense. Acting contrary to the law is. The president announcing that he interprets the law in a particular fashion is not acting contrary to the law. If he puts that into effect in a manner that is contrary to law, then impeachment is a reasonable alternative.
I dismissed it the way I did because the suggestion itself is superficial.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Congress passed this with the intent to provide an even stronger circumscription so that vaguely expressed national security would be ruled out for warrantless opening of mail.
If that's true - and it may well be - it should be easy to cite some evidence of this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're making a HUGE and unwarranted assumption that Congress intended to override that law.
For what other reason would this law exist, except possibly to pander to people without doing anything?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish they'd intercept all the junk mail and stupid credit card/mortgage offers I get every day. I wish there was a spam mail service that would filter that crap out. IMO, snail mail is an incredible waste of time and resources and should be done away with. Rarely do I get anything worthwhile in the mail for Bush to open.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a huge difference between interpreting a law and saying that you don't have to obey a law. When the "interpretation" we're talking about is "I don't have to listen to you, legislative branch." then we are talking about a separation of powers issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a huge difference between interpreting a law and saying that you don't have to obey a law. When the "interpretation" we're talking about is "I don't have to listen to you, legislative branch." then we are talking about a separation of powers issue.
This is a serious issue and, if you are going to argue against the use of signing statements, I think you'd do better to not use superficial dismissals.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
And an example of clearly directly saying that he doesn't have to listen to Congress:
quote:But in the Judiciary Committee hearing, Specter and several other senators focused on several high-profile signing statements in which Bush contradicted the direct intent of Congress. In particular, the committee repeatedly brought up Bush's signing statement in December on a torture ban.
Congress voted overwhelmingly to outlaw all forms of abusive interrogation techniques by US officials. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney fought the ban, asking Congress to allow the president to waive the ban under certain circumstances to preserve the president's ``flexibility" in the war on terrorism. But Congress rejected the waiver, passing an absolute ban in all circumstances.
When it became clear that the torture ban would pass, Bush called a press conference and said he supported it. But later, he issued a signing statement saying that he had the constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to waive the ban in a situation where he felt harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to protect national security.
posted
No, it's an example of the President interpreting the constitution differently than Congress. Specter is proposing a course of action that acknowledges this. You are not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The President clearly said that he doesn't have to listen to Congress on this particular issue. And I'm saying that the President does have a different interpretation than Congress, but that I think it is likely that this interpretation that allows him to ignore Congress in these instances is highly flawed.
edit: And, I'll ask again, Dag, why is the signing statement path a superior one to the legislative one that I and various other people, including ranking members of Congress, have said that they should be using?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it your opinion, Dag, that to prevent the President from authorizing torture would require a Constitutional Amendment?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President clearly said that he doesn't have to listen to Congress on this particular issue. And I'm saying that the President does have a different interpretation than Congress, but that I think it is likely that this interpretation that allows him to ignore Congress in these instances is highly flawed.
Good. That is, of course, very different than "I don't have to listen to you, legislative branch," unqualified and as grounds for impeachment.
The President did not say, "I don't have to listen to Congress." He said, "Congress does not have the authority to ban action X." It's a vey big difference, and you know that.
quote:And, I'll ask again, Dag, why is the signing statement path a superior one to the legislative one that I and various other people, including ranking members of Congress, have said that they should be using?
Squicky, where did I say it was a superior one?
quote:Is it your opinion, Dag, that to prevent the President from authorizing torture would require a Constitutional Amendment?
No. I'd love it if you could quote something by me that gives you any basis at all for asking this question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President did not say, "I don't have to listen to Congress." He said, "Congress does not have the authority to ban action X."
1) Yes, he did say that he didn't have to listen to Congress. He may have implied a reason for saying so, but that doesn't change the fact that he did in fact say that he didn't need to listen to Congress.
2) This is a huge difference from what you were claiming, that he had a different interpretation of the law.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, he did say that he didn't have to listen to Congress. He may have implied a reason for saying so, but that doesn't change the fact that he did in fact say that he didn't need to listen to Congress
He gave a reason, he didn't imply it, and this is very different from your unqualified statement with it's implied "ever."
quote:This is a huge difference from what you were claiming, that he had a different interpretation of the law.
No, it's not.
Please cite where I said signing statements were superior to legislative solutions before this goes any further.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squicky, where did I say it was a superior one?
You seem to be taking exception with my opposition in favor of the legislative solution to it.
And, to head off your response, it is perfectly legal for Congress to impeach the President on pretty much anything they darn well want. I think that it's possible that they could actually convict him on this, but it's well within the law for them to use it as a big freaking stick to get him back within reasonable limits, without an actual conviction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to be taking exception with my opposition in favor of the legislative solution to it.
Could you quote that for me? I've taken exception to how you characterize the signing statements and to your call for impeachment. Where did I say it was superior?
quote:And, to head off your response, it is perfectly legal for Congress to impeach the President on pretty much anything they darn well want.
Don't anticipate me. You do it badly. Of course it's not "illegal" for them to do it for any reason they want. Any more than it is "illegal" for Bush to announce how he intends to interpret the law.
It is, however, against the Constitution to do so for any reason other than High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The lack of a judicial remedy doesn't change that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I'd love it if you could quote something by me that gives you any basis at all for asking this question.
You've already argued in favor of legal justifications for torture in existing law, and that many of the justifications are not legislative but constitutional. A law which bans all justification for torture could easily have a signing statement attached which states that the executive branch will be bound by this except in cases which are not specifically authorized by existing law or the Constitution. While Congress could remedy this by specifying that this law was intended to supercede existing law, the Constitutional justification would remain open.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've already argued in favor of legal justifications for torture in existing law, and that many of the justifications are not legislative but constitutional.
quote:And, I'll ask again, Dag, why is the signing statement path a superior one to the legislative one that I and various other people, including ranking members of Congress, have said that they should be using?
Realize you're asking this again, essentially pestering me to defend a position I haven't taken. I'm not sure why you think I think it's superior, but if it's not based on something I said, then stop making crap up about what I think and retract your assertion.
If it is based on something I said, quote it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you said it was superior nor that I thought that you thought it was superior. The only people I'm willing to attribute that to are the people taking this action (i.e. the President).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why did you ask "again, Dag, why is the signing statement path a superior one to the legislative one that I and various other people, including ranking members of Congress, have said that they should be using?"
Hey Squick, why is it OK for Congress to revoke the Bill of Rights?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the superiority of this signing statement is a part of the conversation. The President's actions made it such. I was asking you to take a stand on it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't basing it on nothing nor was I presupposing your position (or at least not in the direction that you are implying).
I was however introducing the President's apparent stance that this method was superior to the other.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've already argued in favor of legal justifications for torture in existing law, and that many of the justifications are not legislative but constitutional.
*sigh* I didn't say you agreed with the justifications. You've just pointed out that the President's legal council asserted Constitutional justifications for the executive branch's authorization of torture.
Is it not the case that the President could use a signing statement to indicate that he intends to obey the law "in compliance with the Constitution," thus forcing the courts to decide whether or not torture is in fact Constitutional and removing the question from the legislature?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Then we're back to me asking you to do me the courtesy of quoting what you were basing it on.
quote:*sigh* I didn't say you agreed with the justifications. You've just pointed out that the President's legal council asserted Constitutional justifications for the executive branch's authorization of torture.
Tom, I don't accept your characterization of anything I've said. I'm not going to respond in a vaccuum. Quote what I said, then I can put it next to your question and explain my position. As it is, I can't make heads or tails out of your question, because I can't conceive how you would get from what I said to your original question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then we're back to me asking you to do me the courtesy of quoting what you were basing it on.
Your statements here, past and present. Could you explain why you claimed I was basing it on nothing?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What statement have I made that says I think the signing statement is superior. Just quote it. It's a small, simple request.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you explain why you claimed I was basing it on nothing?
Because I've asked you several times to demonstrate what I said that indicates I believe signing statements to be superior to veto+legislative response and you've refused to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As it is, I can't make heads or tails out of your question, because I can't conceive how you would get from what I said to your original question.
Dag, I'll rephrase to make the difficulty clearer; you're reacting as if I'm building a case against YOU, when I'm not.
1) The President has asserted the Constitutional right to torture in certain circumstances. 2) A hypothetical law is passed to ban all torture. 3) The President, when signing that bill into law, adds a signing statement that he intends for it to be obeyed within the framework of the Constitution. 4) What this signing statement really means, therefore, is that the President is going to ignore the law, rendering the bill effectively useless.
In this case, there is no way to effectively ban the President from a specific behavior -- through legislation, at least -- that he asserts has Constitutional justification.
------
In this specific case, we have a law that's designed to fill and clarify an obvious hole in "privacy rights:" the potential opening of citizens' mail without warrant in the wake of a perceived rash of warrantless searches.
The President has previously asserted that existing laws give him the ability to conduct warrantless searches; this is at least partly the reason for this law, to clarify that it shall not be done.
The President, when signing the bill, adds a signing statement that permits the executive branch to open mail without a warrant in situations "specifically authorized by law for the purposes of foreign intelligence collection" -- which, given that it is the President's position that existing law ALREADY allows warrantless searches for the purposes of foreign intelligence collection, means that the executive branch will not have to change its methods noticeably.
My specific observation, then, is that mail from citizens to suspected terrorists, even if those terrorists are also citizens, can continue to be opened without warrant under this signing statement, using the same legal justifications for warrantless wiretapping.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said above, I never claimed that you believed that.
Then what is the "it" in this question: "Could you explain why you claimed I was basing it on nothing?"
Why did you ask the question as you did instead of asking my opinion on the matter? You asked me why X was superior to Y. Does it make sense to ask that question when you don't know if I think X is superior to Y?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why did you ask the question as you did instead of asking my opinion on the matter? You asked me why X was superior to Y. Does it make sense to ask that question when you don't know if I think X is superior to Y?
We are discussing something that has part of its basis in the the President's apparent opinion that the path he is taking is superior to the legislative one. All you needed to say, instead of this pulling teeth process is what you actual opinion was on this. (And, if I'm guessing, it would at least be that signing statements are not superior and may possibly be inferior). An "I don't think that this method is superior." would have sufficed and I would have asked you why and we could have explored the issue. If you don't think that it is superior, then there is room to explore why and what the proper response to get the to adopt a different way of doing things (e.g. impeachment). If you agree with the President, on the other hand, then there is not much room to go there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) The President has asserted the Constitutional right to torture in certain circumstances. 2) A hypothetical law is passed to ban all torture. 3) The President, when signing that bill into law, adds a signing statement that he intends for it to be obeyed within the framework of the Constitution. 4) What this signing statement really means, therefore, is that the President is going to ignore the law, rendering the bill effectively useless.
In this case, there is no way to effectively ban the President from a specific behavior -- through legislation, at least -- that he asserts has Constitutional justification.
Sure there is. As soon as he does it, you prosecute (assuming the charge was criminal), either via impeachment or special prosecutor, or have someone file an 1983 suit for violation of civil rights. Is it difficult? Of course it is. There's an obvious conflict of interest in prosecuting the executive branch. This is one of the thorniest problems of government. Still, the signing statement is irrelevent to this difficulty.
And that's without Specter's proposed bill to allow suit to challenge signing statements. If that bill is passed, then the presence of a signing statement makes it easier to challenge before the act, not harder.
quote:We are discussing something that has part of its basis in the the President's apparent opinion that the path he is taking is superior to the legislative one. All you needed to say, instead of this pulling teeth process is what you actual opinion was on this. (And, if I'm guessing, it would at least be that signing statements are not superior and may possibly be inferior). But that doesn't seem to be the way that you do things.
Not with someone who has your history of twisting my words and putting words into my mouth. Further, all you had to do was ask the question you actually wanted answered, without prejudging my answer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
