Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without a warrant

[Caine]

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?

Exigent circumstances.

And yes, a warrant is obtained after the fact, as is the case when police enter a home where the resident is murdered and they cannot obtain consent (because the only one to consent is dead). They still enter the home to clear the residence of suspects and secure the crime scene to process evidence. And while this is occurring a warrant is being obtained, yet they already started the search!

I thought you would know this......

 

[RightinNYC]

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.

And when did he fail to execute them?

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: Examples of the president's signing statements - The Boston Globe

Thank you for proving my point.

You've cited several of Bush's signing statements where he's stated an explication or interpretation of the law.

However,

You have failed to show a single example of a time when a signing statement was used to interpret a law in a way contrary to the law's intent, OR a time when a signing statement was used as a justification for failing to enforce a law.

This is my point. Until a signing statement is USED in a way that is unconstitutional or illegal, nothing is wrong with it. It is only if and when it is used that it becomes a problem.

 

[Alex]

And when did he fail to execute them?



Thank you for proving my point.

You've cited several of Bush's signing statements where he's stated an explication or interpretation of the law.

However,

You have failed to show a single example of a time when a signing statement was used to interpret a law in a way contrary to the law's intent, OR a time when a signing statement was used as a justification for failing to enforce a law.

This is my point. Until a signing statement is USED in a way that is unconstitutional or illegal, nothing is wrong with it. It is only if and when it is used that it becomes a problem.

"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."

This "explains" or "interprets" the law?

"The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress."

This "explains" or "interprets" the law?

The President's written intent to disobey the laws is just as bad as actually doing it, and we already know that we cannot trust this president.

You stated "You have failed to show a single example of a time when a signing statement was used to interpret a law in a way contrary to the law's intent."

Are you serious with this? Every example I provided does exactly this.

...OR a time when a signing statement was used as a justification for failing to enforce a law. This is my point. Until a signing statement is USED in a way that is unconstitutional or illegal, nothing is wrong with it. It is only if and when it is used that it becomes a problem.

Okay, so if I decide to break the law, come up with a written statement to break that law, and everyone knows my intent to break the law, I should not be stopped and no one should be concerned?

 

[disneydude]

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

I don't think that you are that naive. If Bush didn't think it added anything then tell me...what was the point of the signing statement?
It doesn't add anything according to the Postal Service...but don't fool yourself into believing that Bush won't use this and claim "exigent circumstances" anytime he wants just as he did with the illegal wiretap spying.

 

[disneydude]

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



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.

What the heck are you talking about?

The only thing that the law requires is that if you choose to spy or open mail without a warrant, you get a warrant after the fact. That way there is oversight to ensure that the mail that is being sought to open is within constitutional bounds. See...the court reviews your actions AFTER the search.
It doesn't slow anything down so your attempt to scare by claiming all these people will die is competely without any merit.

 

[RightinNYC]

"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."

This "explains" or "interprets" the law?

"The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress."

This "explains" or "interprets" the law?

The President's written intent to disobey the laws is just as bad as actually doing it, and we already know that we cannot trust this president.

Those are all reasonable interpretations of the law until proven otherwise in a court.

You stated "You have failed to show a single example of a time when a signing statement was used to interpret a law in a way contrary to the law's intent."

Are you serious with this? Every example I provided does exactly this.

No, you haven't. Show me just ONE time where a signing statement was USED to "break the law.

Okay, so if I decide to break the law, come up with a written statement to break that law, and everyone knows my intent to break the law, I should not be stopped and no one should be concerned?

It's funny, because you made that analogy thinking that it would show how right you are, but in actuality in that stated case you've done nothing wrong.

According to the law, until you've taken action to break the law or reached the point of impossibility, no crime has been committed.

Similarly, in this case, unless a court of law finds that the Bush admin has actually used a signing statement contrary to the law or that they have actively intended to directly contravene the law, nothing is wrong with the signing statements.

Edit:

The President's written intent to disobey the laws is just as bad as actually doing it

So, according to you, each of Bush I's 250+ and Clinton's 180+ "signing statements" were also notifications of "intent to disobey the law?"

Or is it possible that "signing statements" are simply incredibly inconsequential factors that have never been an issue until this president?

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't think that you are that naive. If Bush didn't think it added anything then tell me...what was the point of the signing statement?

To express his discontent with the law?
To express his interpretation of the law?
To express his approach to the law?

Any of those are valid reasons.

It doesn't add anything according to the Postal Service...but don't fool yourself into believing that Bush won't use this and claim "exigent circumstances" anytime he wants just as he did with the illegal wiretap spying.

Again - If you have evidence that any of these signing statements are, have been, or will be used in an illegal manner, please provide it.

Side note: To all the people acting like "signing statements" are something that the Bush admin created to destroy our freedom - You do know that this is a long tradition that goes back through Clinton and Bush I, right? Nobody questioned either of them for their use of them.

 

[Alex]

Those are all reasonable interpretations of the law until proven otherwise in a court.

Those are not "interpretations". They are flat out statements saying the law does not apply to the President.

No, you haven't. Show me just ONE time where a signing statement was USED to "break the law.

Now you change it to only "break the law"? LMAO.

It's funny, because you made that analogy thinking that it would show how right you are, but in actuality in that stated case you've done nothing wrong.

According to the law, until you've taken action to break the law or reached the point of impossibility, no crime has been committed.

Similarly, in this case, unless a court of law finds that the Bush admin has actually used a signing statement contrary to the law or that they have actively intended to directly contravene the law, nothing is wrong with the signing statements.

Nice dodge. Answer the question. Should I be stopped before the law is broke and should people be concerned?

So, according to you, each of Bush I's 250+ and Clinton's 180+ "signing statements" were also notifications of "intent to disobey the law?"

Or is it possible that "signing statements" are simply incredibly inconsequential factors that have never been an issue until this president?

Any president who uses statements to say the law does not apply to them is wrong. I do not care what president you are. And FYI, Bush has issued over 800 statute challenges. Ronald Reagan issued 71 challenges to statutes during eight years in office. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statues while in office for four years. Bill Clinton only wrote 140 statute challenges during eight years in office. So far, after only six years in office, George W. Bush has written at least 800 challenges. That is more than ALL presidents combined. That is where the alarm comes from.

Source: http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/
Click: "Task Force Report with Recommendations"

 

[disneydude]

You do know that this is a long tradition that goes back through Clinton and Bush I, right? Nobody questioned either of them for their use of them.

Yes...but neither Bush1 nor Clinton used signing statements to create legislation. They were used properly to interpret what they believed the law to be.
King George has used signing statements in a manner that is clearly not intended. He has used them more that twice Bush1 and Clinton put together in a completely different manner.

 

[RightinNYC]

Those are not "interpretations". They are flat out statements saying the law does not apply to the President.

No, they're no such thing until they're proven to be contrary to the law in a court.

Now you change it to only "break the law"? LMAO.

Phrase it however you want.

Fact is, you can't show me a SINGLE example of where a signing statement was used to break the law, contravene the law, prevent a law from being implemented, etc etc etc.

Nice dodge. Answer the question. Should I be stopped before the law is broke and should people be concerned?

I'm not in the business of saying whether you should or you should not. Legally, you have done nothing wrong, so it's beyond the purview of the state to do anything.

Unless, of course, you're arguing for expanded powers for the executive branch. :lol: In that case, you could be stopped.

Any president who uses statements to say the law does not apply to them is wrong. I do not care what president you are.

So why no uproar then?

And FYI, Bush has issued over 800 statute challenges. Ronald Reagan issued 71 challenges to statutes during eight years in office. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statues while in office for four years. Bill Clinton only wrote 140 statute challenges during eight years in office. So far, after only six years in office, George W. Bush has written at least 800 challenges. That is more than ALL presidents combined.

All true.

However, none of this matters in the slightest. If it is completely illegal when Bush does it, then it was completely illegal when anyone else did it.

Luckily, it didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

That is where the alarm comes from.

Source: Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine
Click: "Task Force Report with Recommendations"

No, the alarm comes from ignorance about what a signing statement is, how it works, and a media-frenzy fear of the Bush Administration.

 

[Renald]

This Bush is not appreciated here no?

Is this forum an American one?

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes...but neither Bush1 nor Clinton used signing statements to create legislation.

Look, this tired talking point has been stated over and over. Either show me a SINGLE example of legislation that Bush has created with a signing statement, or quit spouting this garbage.

They were used properly to interpret what they believed the law to be.

You know what? I'm willing to bet you didn't read all of the 370+ signing statements of HW and Clinton. Do you know what that means? It means you're repeating what you heard elsewhere, or you're basing your opinion on nothing more than your own preconceived notion of what you think Bush would do.

King George has used signing statements in a manner that is clearly not intended.

Please show me where its explicated what they were intended to be, and how Bush's SS's are different.

He has used them more that twice Bush1 and Clinton put together in a completely different manner.

So? Somehow, the fact that he's used 750 of them made them illegal, while the fact that HW and Clinton used nearly 400 made them totally legal?

Either they're legal or they're not.

 

[Stinger]

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

Correct, it merely restates and confirms the authority.

 

[Stinger]

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

Where did my statement limit it to just isolate?

 

[Stinger]

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.

No they aren't procedures have to be followed to get warrants and they take time. Can you show me where opening a letter that is spilling a white powder is NOT unreasonable?

Can you show me where this signing statement changes anything? Proper filings are already made after the fact.

 

[Caine]

No they aren't procedures have to be followed to get warrants and they take time. Can you show me where opening a letter that is spilling a white powder is NOT unreasonable?

Are you freaking serious?
How could it EVER be unreasonable?
This question is dumb and not deserving of an answer.

Can you show me where this signing statement changes anything? Proper filings are already made after the fact.

Can you show me where I said it did? :roll:

 

[Inuyasha]

The key phrase which is involved here is (cleverly: sic) not stated- That is "legal precedent".

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

I’m murky on the whole subject of ticking letters that leak white powder. :shock: Is it even possible for a warrant to not be issued when there is obviously funky **** going down?

What circumstances could EVER warrant the executive branch doing whatever the hell it is they do under their beloved veil of secrecy without even a retrospective, perfunctory nod towards our CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED!!! system of checks and balances?

:damn

 

[Stinger]

Are you freaking serious?
How could it EVER be unreasonable?
This question is dumb and not deserving of an answer.

Then refresh yourself on the constitutional protection against UNREASONABLE searches. All the Bush signing statement does is confirm that.

So what is the gripe?

 

[Inuyasha]

2.2.1 Inspection of Contents
First-Class Mail is closed against postal inspection. Federal law and USPS regulations restrict both opening and reviewing the contents of First-Class Mail by anyone other than the addressee.
DMM 133 First-Class Mail Rates and Eligibility for Retail Letters, Flats, and Parcels

 

[rathi]

...The real problem here is in the fact that this statement is not written in English. Its insane that our government can create laws and policy in a language that most Americans can't understand. "Exigent circumstances". That is a bullcrap statement. What is an Exigent circumstance? If it means, "this letter is about the explode a bunch of anthrax everywhere" thats different from "the president desperately wants to open a letter". And the dictionary definition doesn't help in the slightest. Its pretty hard to have accountable politicians when you can't even understand them.

 

[Caine]

Then refresh yourself on the constitutional protection against UNREASONABLE searches. All the Bush signing statement does is confirm that.

So what is the gripe?

I know this... But when I jumped in to respond to you, You were not talking about this specific example now were you?
You were not talking about searching mail for powder or ticking....

You were talking about correspondence/communication.
There is no way to determine exigent circumstances for correspondence, so therefore, a warrant should be required when, or obtained after, opening the correspondence.

Can you explain to me how there could ever be exigent circumstances to open a normal letter or piece of mail with only written words????

Can you explain to me how opening a piece of flat mail, with no other suspicion than the name of the person it was being sent to, could be anything other than unreasonable?

 

[disneydude]

...The real problem here is in the fact that this statement is not written in English. Its insane that our government can create laws and policy in a language that most Americans can't understand. "Exigent circumstances". That is a bullcrap statement. What is an Exigent circumstance? If it means, "this letter is about the explode a bunch of anthrax everywhere" thats different from "the president desperately wants to open a letter". And the dictionary definition doesn't help in the slightest. Its pretty hard to have accountable politicians when you can't even understand them.

And therein lies the EXACT problem. Bush has already shown in his spying without a warrant that he will use these signing statements to define "exigent circumstances" as whatever he wants to justify his spying, searching mail....etc.

 

[1069]

I know this... But when I jumped in to respond to you, You were not talking about this specific example now were you?
You were not talking about searching mail for powder or ticking....

You were talking about correspondence/communication.
There is no way to determine exigent circumstances for correspondence, so therefore, a warrant should be required when, or obtained after, opening the correspondence.

Can you explain to me how there could ever be exigent circumstances to open a normal letter or piece of mail with only written words????

Can you explain to me how opening a piece of flat mail, with no other suspicion than the name of the person it was being sent to, could be anything other than unreasonable?

It's not about what's "reasonable"; it's about what's possible.
Regulations couched in deliberately vague language ("exigent", "reasonable") do not effectively safeguard the American public against civil rights violations by authorities, for whatever reason.
Are you suggesting it's beyond the realm of possibility that President Bush or some other authority would ever want to open "a piece of flat mail, with no other suspicion than the name of the person it was being sent to"?
Who determines what's "reasonable"?
Who defines what's "exigent"?
Obviously, if they wish to do it, it is both "reasonable" and "exigent" to them.
We need narrower and more specific language when it comes to balancing national security measures with the civil rights of the American people.

 

[Caine]

It's not about what's "reasonable"; it's about what's possible.

"Reasonableness" is what determines if a search is lawful or not.

Regulations couched in deliberately vague language ("exigent", "reasonable") do not effectively safeguard the American public against civil rights violations by authorities, for whatever reason.

Reasonable when dealing with search/seizure is probably one of the most defined terms in the courts, by precedent.

Are you suggesting it's beyond the realm of possibility that President Bush or some other authority would ever want to open "a piece of flat mail, with no other suspicion than the name of the person it was being sent to"?

Absolutely not. I was only asking Stinger to define a time when such a search would be considered "reasonable" at all.

Who determines what's "reasonable"?

Judges.

Who defines what's "exigent"?

Judges/Authorities in the postition to act under such circumstances.

Obviously, if they wish to do it, it is both "reasonable" and "exigent" to them.

Yes, but the judges don't always tend to agree with them. I would agree that just seeing a name on an envelope is neither grounds for exigent circumstances, nor is it enough to establish probable cause in obtaining a warrant to search said envelope. Barring any additional information added to the situation ("feel" of something from inside the envelope, background information on the sender and receiver's earlier plans, etc).

We need narrower and more specific language when it comes to balancing national security measures with the civil rights of the American people.

I agree. And those who enable/support the government in "re-defining" our civil rights in order to "protect" us need to think twice about the type of America they are willing to live in, just so that they can be "protected" from "terrorism".