Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without a warrant (1 Viewer)

[disneydude]

"The Decider" is at it again. Once again the man who would be King has decided that he has the authority to open US Citizens private mail without a warrant. This man will not quit until he has destroyed or at least tried to destroy all civil rights in America. He has abused the signing statement power repeatedly throughout his reign in power. After all....he is "The decider"...he "decides things" and thinks that he has the power of a dictator not a President.....
The thing that makes it even worse is he tried to slip it in with other postal regulation.....Does he actually think that no one would notice?

Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without warrants - Boston.com

 

[Kelzie]

Fantastic! Maybe he can toss my junk mail for me. :mrgreen:

 

[WI Crippler]

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."

I figure this guy would know how the law affects the mail. This is right out of the article posted, by the way. Nothing to worry about IMO.
All I get are bills and junk mail anyway.

 

[danarhea]

"The Decider" is at it again. Once again the man who would be King has decided that he has the authority to open US Citizens private mail without a warrant. This man will not quit until he has destroyed or at least tried to destroy all civil rights in America. He has abused the signing statement power repeatedly throughout his reign in power. After all....he is "The decider"...he "decides things" and thinks that he has the power of a dictator not a President.....
The thing that makes it even worse is he tried to slip it in with other postal regulation.....Does he actually think that no one would notice?

Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without warrants - Boston.com

The subject of signing statements will be before the Supreme Court soon enough. Problem with signing statements is that Bush is using them to create legislation, which, according to the Constitution, he does not have the power to do. Signing statements have historically been a means for a President to give an opinion, not legislate. This is yet another area where Bush has ignored the Constitution, and I predict it will be slapped down before the end of the year by the Supremes. Good possibility that Scalia, the strict constructionist that he is, may even write the majority opinion on that.

 

[Stinger]

"The Decider" is at it again. Once again the man who would be King has decided that he has the authority to open US Citizens private mail without a warrant. This man will not quit until he has destroyed or at least tried to destroy all civil rights in America. He has abused the signing statement power repeatedly throughout his reign in power. After all....he is "The decider"...he "decides things" and thinks that he has the power of a dictator not a President.....
The thing that makes it even worse is he tried to slip it in with other postal regulation.....Does he actually think that no one would notice?

Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without warrants - Boston.com

How about if a white powder is coming out of the envelope, should a warrant be required?

 

[Gibberish]

How about if a white powder is coming out of the envelope, should a warrant be required?

Probable cause of terrorist activity is complete different situation. If the Post office came across a big box that said "Radioactive" on it and was addressed from Afghan I would have no problem with the feds confiscating and opening.

 

[Stinger]

Probable cause of terrorist activity is complete different situation.

That's not probable cause of a terrorist activity, it is a reasonable search and would be consistent with

" "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ...""

If the Post office came across a big box that said "Radioactive" on it and was addressed from Afghan I would have no problem with the feds confiscating and opening.

Why would a terrorist are anyone trying to commit a crime with it lable it and anything coming into the country is subject to Customs search anyway, moot point.

Once again to the leftest out there, what CAN we do to fight terrorism and protect ourselves that you won't make these phony gripes about?

 

[disneydude]

what CAN we do to fight terrorism and protect ourselves that you won't make these phony gripes about?

Easy. Use any and all available means within the boundaries of the Constitution. Get a warrant or even get a warrant after the fact to ensure that there is a paper trail to provide oversight. Not difficult.

 

[PeteEU]

So Stinger, should the US open mail coming from all countries and people suspected of supporting terror? How about cities or areas in the US with muslim populations.. or Irish, or Basque?

And what criteria should be the justification of "supporting terror"? The flawed no fly list? That the sender or reciever is a muslim? That the sender is a muslim or from a muslim nation or a nation that does not agree with US policy? How about from a muslim in the UK, someone who agrees on the offical level with Bush and his policies?

With this signing statement Bush can do all of the above and more.. but then again he would probally do it anyway without the signing statement as he does not respect the law.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

We need to quit using our fear of what could happen as a justifying factor for making absurd changes or allowing the President who is a servant of the public to get away with whatever he wants.

 

[Inuyasha]

How about if a white powder is coming out of the envelope, should a warrant be required?

And those ticking letters, keep any eye on them. This could be the end of the musical greeting card business.:rofl

 

[Stinger]

Easy. Use any and all available means within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Like what? What do you support we do to ferret out Al qaeda operative trying to establish contact with people here?

Get a warrant or even get a warrant after the fact

What good is that? After the fact could be thousands dead.

to ensure that there is a paper trail to provide oversight. Not difficult.

Why? Thousands death but we got a paper trial, how comforting. What do you think we are doing that requires a warrant where a warrant is not being sought and be specific.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
How about if a white powder is coming out of the envelope, should a warrant be required?

And those ticking letters, keep any eye on them. This could be the end of the musical greeting card business.:rofl

How about a serious response this time. It is not unheard of that a letter arrives at a post office or place of business and that happens. Should a warrant be required?

 

[Alex]

The subject of signing statements will be before the Supreme Court soon enough. Problem with signing statements is that Bush is using them to create legislation, which, according to the Constitution, he does not have the power to do. Signing statements have historically been a means for a President to give an opinion, not legislate. This is yet another area where Bush has ignored the Constitution, and I predict it will be slapped down before the end of the year by the Supremes. Good possibility that Scalia, the strict constructionist that he is, may even write the majority opinion on that.

Do not be too sure about that. Antonin Scalia gave weight to signing statements in a dissenting opinion. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (548 U.S. ___, 2006) he stated “…the Court wholly ignores the President’s signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] ousted jurisdiction over pending cases” (at 2816). The signing statement stated, “The executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.” Scalia was clearly endorsing the presidential signing statement and believed that the President had the authority to stop the Court from hearing cases, which he does not.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=05-184

Also, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., when Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice, wrote a proposal for more use of presidential signing statements. He went on to give advise on how to make signing statements more powerful. He suggested to start with bills that are expected to pass, that are significant, and that require interpretation. At first, the signing statements are to be kept at a moderate to small size and scope and should not challenge Congress in any significant way. If these suggestions are abided by, the signing statements should slowly become a normal part of the president’s approval process.

Source: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/01/alito-on-presidential-signing.html
Go to "The Alito memo can be found here."

Both of these judges seem to believe that the President has more authority than they actually do. They are suppose to be the Constructionists on the Court? Maybe the closest thing to it, but still not quite there. For sure not "strict" Constructionists.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Do you think it's healthy for our country to be constantly paranoid and afraid all of the time about the what if's? Bush supporters seem so ready and willing to sacrifice anything and everything for the illusion of safety. How long will it take before we have sacrificed enough? It seems to me that the ideals that make this country great are getting torn away more and more in the name of this so-called War On Terror. Honestly, have the sacrifices we've made thus far improved anything?

 

[RightinNYC]

The subject of signing statements will be before the Supreme Court soon enough. Problem with signing statements is that Bush is using them to create legislation

No, he's not.

Please cite one piece of legislation Bush has created through signing statements.

 

[RightinNYC]

So Stinger, should the US open mail coming from all countries and people suspected of supporting terror? How about cities or areas in the US with muslim populations.. or Irish, or Basque?

And what criteria should be the justification of "supporting terror"? The flawed no fly list? That the sender or reciever is a muslim? That the sender is a muslim or from a muslim nation or a nation that does not agree with US policy? How about from a muslim in the UK, someone who agrees on the offical level with Bush and his policies?

With this signing statement Bush can do all of the above and more.. but then again he would probally do it anyway without the signing statement as he does not respect the law.

No, he cannot.

 

[RightinNYC]

Originally Posted by Stinger
How about if a white powder is coming out of the envelope, should a warrant be required?




How about a serious response this time. It is not unheard of that a letter arrives at a post office or place of business and that happens. Should a warrant be required?

The Postal Service already has the right to open any package they suspect of being a bomb. This "signing statement" doesn't add anything.

 

[RightinNYC]

Do not be too sure about that. Antonin Scalia gave weight to signing statements in a dissenting opinion. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (548 U.S. ___, 2006) he stated “…the Court wholly ignores the President’s signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] ousted jurisdiction over pending cases” (at 2816). The signing statement stated, “The executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.” Scalia was clearly endorsing the presidential signing statement and believed that the President had the authority to stop the Court from hearing cases, which he does not.

Source: FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Also, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., when Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice, wrote a proposal for more use of presidential signing statements. He went on to give advise on how to make signing statements more powerful. He suggested to start with bills that are expected to pass, that are significant, and that require interpretation. At first, the signing statements are to be kept at a moderate to small size and scope and should not challenge Congress in any significant way. If these suggestions are abided by, the signing statements should slowly become a normal part of the president’s approval process.

Source: The Buck Stops Here: Alito on Presidential Signing Statements
Go to "The Alito memo can be found here."

Both of these judges seem to believe that the President has more authority than they actually do. They are suppose to be the Constructionists on the Court? Maybe the closest thing to it, but still not quite there. For sure not "strict" Constructionists.

How does a belief that the president has some level of inherent authority conflict with constructionism?

 

[Alex]

How does a belief that the president has some level of inherent authority conflict with constructionism?

Where in the Constitution are signing statements allowed? When did Congress pass the legislation (required by the Constitution) for presidents to use signing statements to disobey the law? As a matter of fact, the Constitution states that the President, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Does not look to me like "shall write signing statements that disregard the law."

 

[Wyrmdog]

How about a serious response this time. It is not unheard of that a letter arrives at a post office or place of business and that happens. Should a warrant be required?

Yes. You don't need a warrant to isolate something.

 

[RightinNYC]

Where in the Constitution are signing statements allowed?

Where in the Constitution are they disallowed?

When did Congress pass the legislation (required by the Constitution) for presidents to use signing statements to disobey the law?

When did any president use a signing statement to disobey the law?

As a matter of fact, the Constitution states that the President, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Does not look to me like "shall write signing statements that disregard the law."

Where has law been disregarded?

 

[Alex]

Where in the Constitution are they disallowed?

Are you serious with this? The Constitution states what the government can do, not cannot do. It specifically states that the Congress passes laws and the President executes them. It does not say "or not execute" them.

When did any president use a signing statement to disobey the law?

Where has law been disregarded?

This will be easy. How about a challenge to a statute that required scientific information to be given to Congress without edits or without delay when that information is obtained by government researchers. His signing statement declared, “The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.” Another statute that protected whistle-blowers from being fired if they reported anything to Congress was challenged with a statement stating, “The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.” Probably the most disturbing signing statement was a response to a law passed that dealt with torture of prisoners. George W. Bush stated, “The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.” There are several more statements like this but the tone is already clear.

All these examples, as you asked for, disobey the law. So easy.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

 

[Inuyasha]

And those ticking letters, keep any eye on them. This could be the end of the musical greeting card business.:rofl

Serious you want fkking serious. These people are setting precedents that we may well be unable to reverse. I have to laugh because this situation is so tragic that it's the only way to keep from crying. I am sorry if these people are your heroes... the Germans did the same thing in 33 and later they paid for it. You may well live to rue the day you thought these actions were benign. If so, God help you and the democratic republic that we have spent 340 years to build. It can never happen here... that has been said a million times by a million people who later realized that ANYTHING can happen.

 

[Caine]

What good is that? After the fact could be thousands dead.



Why? Thousands death but we got a paper trial, how comforting. What do you think we are doing that requires a warrant where a warrant is not being sought and be specific.

Can you explain to me how NOT getting a warrant and searching something and searching something at the same time as you would without the warrant, but obtaining a warrant later to provide documentation would cause thousands to die???

Show me where the delay is.. They are both done at the SAME TIME. Only one gets documentation and the other does not.