Bush's latest signing statement, a letter opener (Putin, Congress, legal)

[TnHilltopper]

President's H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"

President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"

President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant. Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

This is starting to make some wonder why we even bother having a Congress since Bush has decided to use signing statements like one eats popcorn. Of course a complicit Congress doesn't help matters any.

Are there any limits to signing statements anymore?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

President's H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"

President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"



This is starting to make some wonder why we even bother having a Congress since Bush has decided to use signing statements like one eats popcorn. Of course a complicit Congress doesn't help matters any.

Are there any limits to signing statements anymore?

Are you even reading the actual bills?

I haven't read over this one in detail yet, but where he states this:

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.

It at as far as I can tell is similar to the emergency aspect of law enforcement and other public services which allows them disregard the search and seizure laws when there is an immediate threat to public safety. This form of exception has been around for ages, yet my guess is that it had never translated to the mail system simply because those types of threats were never realized or seen as a strong threat before.

Maybe you were not aware, but if in pursuit (as in recent chase where an officer can reasonably or has seen themselves of the suspect entering) of a dangerous felon who is believed to be an immediate threat to the public, gives that officer immunity to the need of a warrant to enter a house that the dangerous suspect has entered.

Also, if an officer both law or emergency based hears (listens or can discern themselves) of or has reasonable belief that someones life is in danger, they can also enter a premises or search an area that would otherwise fall under those normal civil protections.

Now, again... Since I have not read this bill, I am merely following a logical assumption here based on what I know of our current search and seizure and how it pertains to "exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials".

Am I correct to assume you have read it and put it in its proper context? That you aren't merely here posting out of context claims that would be irresponsible of the actual facts of the issue? You wouldn't post something ignorantly would you? You wouldn't let yourself be a puppet for another's personal agenda would you? I mean, you think and validate before you jump on the bandwagon correct?

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Am I correct to assume you have read it and put it in its proper context? That you aren't merely here posting out of context claims that would be irresponsible of the actual facts of the issue? You wouldn't post something ignorantly would you? You wouldn't let yourself be a puppet for another's personal agenda would you? I mean, you think and validate before you jump on the bandwagon correct?

No Normander, I just post stuff I find or just simply make up. Please, take this condescending drivel elsewhere if you wish to comment on it and not having read it in your own words. Please don't troll threads for the sake of ad homenin, there are enough trolls lurking about.

You focused on one line and omitted the rest, how quaint.

with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials

You didn't even bother to point out this portion.

and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection

In addition it isn't even about the bill H.R. 6407, it is about the accompanying signing statement that subverts portions of the actual bill. So again, save your condescending drivel for the comm college crowd.

The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that call for executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient

Pardon me if I don't have much faith in G W Bush's, "judgment".


The essence of the Presidential signing statement is this.

"In 1996, the postal regulations were altered to permit the opening of First Class mail without a warrant in narrowly defined cases where the Postal Inspector believes there is a credible threat that the package contains dangerous material like bombs," the ACLU said in a press release at the time. "Instead of referencing the narrow exception in the postal regulations, the president’s signing statement suggests that he is assuming broader authority to open mail without a warrant."

Additionally, the other question pertains to the vast number of signing statements that this administration has cranked out in huge numbers. Whats the point of having a Congress if our President will change, alter, or even create laws as he goes along.

[HappyTexan]

The problem is that they seem to be doing a lot of re-writing of rules all in the name of "war on terror". Where does it stop ?

[GregW]

Doing something without a court Warrant makes the individual actually taking the action personally responsible. I think this is why warrants were invented. Does this confer complete immunity to the president or his agent to open mail at their discretion without having to present a reason before hand or afterwards. If so we have indeed lost one of the founding principals of out Republic.

The Republic of the United States of America – RIP – It was nice knowing you.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

No Normander, I just post stuff I find or just simply make up. Please, take this condescending drivel elsewhere if you wish to comment on it and not having read it in your own words. Please don't troll threads for the sake of ad homenin, there are enough trolls lurking about.

You focused on one line and omitted the rest, how quaint.




You didn't even bother to point out this portion.



In addition it isn't even about the bill H.R. 6407, it is about the accompanying signing statement that subverts portions of the actual bill. So again, save your condescending drivel for the comm college crowd.




Pardon me if I don't have much faith in G W Bush's, "judgment".


The essence of the Presidential signing statement is this.



Additionally, the other question pertains to the vast number of signing statements that this administration has cranked out in huge numbers. Whats the point of having a Congress if our President will change, alter, or even create laws as he goes along.

First, I didn't omit anything, I did suggest it appeared to be regulated under issues where urgency is needed. . Also, this bill is authorized according to the previous laws that pertain to the duties here. That is a common "omission" on the part of many when they even talk about the Patriot act which assume the bill they reference or the "small subsection" they do is the complete authoritative context of the action, which it is not because it is contingent on previous sections and law that dictates its structure.

Context is key and cherry picking out what you like and supports your claims is not a good way to bring people to your point. In fact, when I read the immediate jump to a conclusion you make which is basically "Bush is taking all our rights away and look, now playing the role of king", I can't help but think that your position is driven so very strongly by the fallacies created concerning these issue. Many of which the person complaining attempts to use a position that their intelligence is higher than their subject of disapproval.

My over all point, which you so interestingly missed was that these aspects of authority are not "all of a sudden" different than anything we have been doing for years. In fact, it seems you lack some understanding about the structure of the government as well because Executive authority, especially in issues where it requires urgency in the defense of the nation is a power allowed under our constitution and a key aspect of the function of our government.

The reason is that a bureaucracy, while an excellent process within the confines of laws and issues that are not urgent, they are completely unfit for issues that are. This is the functional power of that executive branch. The last thing we need is congress debating and filibustering over issues where urgency is required, when time is of the essence.

This law as I mentioned seemed to be walking the path of many laws we already have on the books. That is, when urgency is needed, when danger to another is an immediate risk, the laws that are a process of bureaucracy can be set aside to insure the safety of those involved. The fact that you have bought into your own personal opinion of Bush himself is just a puppet of many out there that can't seem to separate "emotional" from the issues.

If you think the president is acting outside of his legal authority, what his office was designed and given power to do, by all means, get on the band wagon with all the other kooky people out there and Impeach him. Whats that? I thought so.

[tinman01]

I could care less if they read my mail or open anything I send or is sent to me. I have no worries as I don't support terrorist, criminal or questionable orgs.
If he reads mine he will either be bored or insulted.

[Who?Me?!]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The problem is that they seem to be doing a lot of re-writing of rules all in the name of "war on terror". Where does it stop ?

Where does it stop?

Yup, that's what the pro-bush people never address.
I have even badgered posters to please state at what point the destruction of our rights and liberties will they object...never seems to be an answer....



bushy has used more signing statements to circumvent the law than all other presidents combined. It was meant to be used on RARE occassions.

[HappyTexan]

Before you know it..Marshall Law will be declared. Am I being extreme ? Maybe but then again maybe not.

[Tim Rankin]

Originally Posted by tinman01

I could care less if they read my mail or open anything I send or is sent to me. I have no worries as I don't support terrorist, criminal or questionable orgs.
If he reads mine he will either be bored or insulted.

In China, if you say the "wrong" thing you're sent to a re-education camp.

Just recently in Russia, a reporter who was writing un-flattering stories about Putin & Co. was sent to some kind of sanitorium and fed psychotropic drugs until he became unbalanced. He's trying to resume his reporting career but it's not going too well.

Don't think it could happen here? Already has. Lives & careers were destroyed during the McCarthy years. It probably would have happened more if not for the true patriotism of Americans willing to risk their own hides to stand up to these buffoons.

Frankly, I don't care if they read my mail either - there's nothing interesting there. What bothers me is that by secretly starting to open mail, they have embarked down that path. The journey begins with the first step.