Slashdot Mirror
Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant
don_combatant writes to note that President Bush claimed new powers to search US mail without a warrant. He made this claim in a "signing statement" at the time he signed a postal overhaul bill into law on December 20. The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. According to the article, "A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move."
AFAIK, the last I checked the legality or effectiveness of signing statements (of which Bush has made hundreds of by now, pretty much attaching one to nearly every bill he has signed since he has been in office) was extremely dubious at best. The second something that tries to play off one of these signing statements goes to court, does anybody really, honestly believe that they would hold any legal water? The bill is the bill, and regardless of what little post-it note that the president attaches to it when he signs it doesn't change that fact.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about it at this point, but I'm sure others will follow up if I am completely off base, as IANAL.
A community-oriented lyrics site
In theory, you are quite right, since the president has not been in charge of interpreting the laws for a long time. In practice, however, very few acts of the "FedGov" are ever challenged in court – a large portion of your constitutional protections arise from what the government decides not to do, rather than from you retroactively getting a court order enforcing your rights. In particular, if the government decides to ignore a particular right, they can effectively nullify it.
Actually, to the extent that Mr. Bush is saying "if we believe there's a ticking bomb in a letter we will send the bomb squad in first and resolve the legal issues later", there is no controversey. Unfortunately, he also seems to be saying "if we believe the sender and reciever are contemplating un-american behaviour during a time of national emergency, we will read their mail first and put them on the no-fly list later".
Actually, he's saying "I want to be dictator of the USA"
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George w Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Honestly, don't come to Canada if you believe that it is a more democratic or free country than the US
Essentially, whenever Canada has a majority (which is impossible without strong support from the eastern provinces) it is a benign dictatorship; being that everyone in the West doesn't count (lower representation in the Senate, Lower representation in the House of Commons) we are constantly abused in favour of eastern interests.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
It's a good thing we don't set national policies based on the interperations of all the arm-chair supreme court justices on slashdot.
Is that all you've got? Usually ad hominem attacks resort to foul language to drive their pointlessness home.
How about this: you explain why my expectation that the president either follow the law or veto it is wrong.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Actually, the use of signing statements, especially in this instance, is unconstitutional. The Constitution very clearly states that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress that aren't vetoed. Attaching a signing statement to a bill to change that bill is outside of the President's powers and if the signing statement overrides a provision of a law he has then overstepped his Constitutional powers.
Clones are people two.
Well, yes, because if you have reason to believe there's a bomb in a letter that might blow up if you take the time to go to court that's Probable Cause for doing a search, and a search warrant can be retroactively granted by a judge based on their initial evidence. This is all fine and rational and even Constitutional.
Actually, the legal idea that permits investigating a possble bomb in the mail is Exigent Circumstance not simply probable cause. In the case of Exigent Circumstances they *may* make a warrantless search, but the thing is that there has to be strong evidence that an emergency situation exists, where waiting to get a warrant will result in either destruction of evidence, escape of the suspect, or the key part: to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property.
If they had probable cause to search the mail, then they should get a warrant to open it. The only time where a warrant isn't necessary is for the reasons given above.
Of course, we used to have a right to privacy of your person, which covered things like a diary. According to what I heard, this right was never written down, because the consitituonal framers considered it to be such an undeniable right, that it's not necessary to write it down. (After all, you're not required to testify against yourself, why should the government be able to use your diary against you then?) Although, no such right exists anymore, and your diary may be used against you, because it was never written down.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I used to work at the Information Warfare center in NORAD in Colorado Springs. If you're doing something the government is interested in, they probably already know about it anyway.
These guys are lawyers and bloggers. I think their analysis carries significant weight.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016398.php
"...I think the paper has the story exactly backward. Under pre-existing law, a search warrant was normally required to open first class mail (but not other forms of mail). However, many exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant have been recognized. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all cases; it requires that all searches be "reasonable."
One broad category of exception to the requirement of a warrant is "exigent circumstances." Generally speaking, if there are exigent circumstances (e.g., a danger that evidence is about to be destroyed), a warrant is not required. Thus, to construe the act as permitting warrantless searches in cases of exigent circumstances such as the possible presence of hazardous materials, means that in this regard, the act did not make any change in pre-existing law.
Likewise with the President's second qualification. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, warrantless physical searches are authorized in some circumstances. Thus, the President's signing statement means that he does not construe the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as changing these provisions of FISA.
So what President Bush is saying is that he understands that law enforcement authorities have exactly the same power to open first class mail that the had prior to the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, at least with respect to exigent circumstances and FISA-authorized searches."
Every US citizen should regularly read quotes from The Supremes:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879
Find them. Read them. Absorb them.
You actually hit a nail on the head.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty much somewhere to the left of most people. Im not a socialist, but I'm a greeny humanitarian athiest non-nationalist who really does think people are more important than profits (but conceeds its rarely as simple as that).
I've noticed something quite interesting watching across the pacific at the political debates in the US, and one thing is that whats often being called a "conservative" often doesnt seem to be that well conservative. Its pretty much the same here.
I'm going to do something really fucking wierd for me and argue for traditional conservatism for a bit.
I've always taken conservatism to be a grand old tradition starting with Edmund Burke basically stating in a round about way that tradition trumps human reason. Now whilst that can be accused of anti-intellectualism (and its a correct accusation on some level) its good to look at the context historically.
a-priori reason up till at least the modern times lead to two major strands of politico-economic thought. The workerist communism of Karl marx, and the free market liberalism of Adam Smith. Both brilliantly argued, but both historical failures (some would argue free market liberalism, the dominant ideology of the west has infact redeemed in the past 100 or less years. maybe) itself in its ability to deliver positive outcomes for people.. Consequently conservatism argues for small business, authoritarian but not necesarily too economically intrusive government, against welfare , for monarchy (although Burke was fond of the liberal republicanism of the US revolution despite its origins in the french revolution he despised, but for diferent reasons, principally that he saw them as patriotic and without much of a tradition anyway to squash) and conservatism was largely protectionist. He didnt like the idea of a free market that would squash village and farm economys. Although Karl marx's mob wasnt around yet at the time of Burke, he would of passionately hated it, for its complete untraditionalism and anti-monarchism. Burke also strongly suggested traditional social mores always trumped 'experimental' philisophical social moralitys. If your social system came from a philosopher rather than a pulpit or king, chances are Burke hated it.
Now you can see some of that in the republican rhetoric, but not all of it, and the US is somewhat of a special case, in that the founding fathers republicanism was also profoundly classically liberal. The support base of the republicans tends to come from agricultural communitys, its supporters, and southern 'patriotic' sorts of sentimentalism. Basically a conservative electorate.
But heres the rub. Whilst the republicans (despite the rhetoric about small govt, a liberal idea) do tend to do local policy in a vaguely conservative manner, the foreign policy is deeply non conservative.
Burke always valued tradition. And that means that stomping traditional muslim countries and replacing govts with liberal democracys is a bad thing for conservatives, because conservatism understands that the local tradition is what 'evolved' under the 'best of all possible worlds' within that community. Many traditional conservatives have noted this, and pointed out that neo-conservatism (as many of these neuvo conservatives have dubbed themselves. When said 'conservatives espouse free market ideas, they will tend to be refered in academia as 'neo liberals') appears to have verry little respect for local tradition and thus isnt conservatism)
So yeah. What Im arguing is that at least on foreign policy , and on some level foreign trade, the conservatives of the US establishment appear to be anything but, and paradoxically the liberals appear to be more conservative.
Its an odd conundrum.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.