More Bush - Signing Statement Abuse : Mail Can Now Be Opened Without A Search Warrant

[kpete]

Signing Statement Abuse : Mail can now be opened without a search warrant

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

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html
via:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/31/102559/33

[Drum]

1. Yeah..."Enhancement." nt

[WiseButAngrySara]

2. I hate that sleeze! k(pete)nr. ...n/t

[snappyturtle]

3. Good God what next?

The following snip is from the WH website. What's * talking about: 'strenghten the free market for delivery services'? Could * be talking about private sector friends taking over the postal system? There's just too much news for me to figure out these days!

"Today I have signed into law H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act." The Act is designed to improve the quality of postal service for Americans and to strengthen the free market for delivery services."

edit: K&R!

[Donkeykick]

5. Good Post.

It does make one wonder to Bush's stand on the continuation of our present Postal service, huh. :think:

[notadmblnd]

6. Probalby talking about DHS, Fed-Ex and UPS etc...

bush does nothing that doesn't advance the corporate greed monsters pocketbooks.

[jody]

7. "strengthen the free market for" UPS, FEDEX, etc. n/t

[madeline_con]

15. Thank goodness laws CAN be repealed.

The Dems have SO much work to do after the '08 election. :(

[spanone]

4. The new congress should overturn every fucking 'signing statement' the monkey has made.

[snappyturtle]

10. Agreed! n/t

[regnaD kciN]

19. How can you do that...?

Sure, you can pass a bill that will repeal the law, but

a) Chimpy will veto it, or
b) Chimpy will sign it, but issue a signing statement that "interprets" the repeal as being the same as the old law.

Face it: the only way to stop these signing statements is by electing a President that won't issue them.

[never cry wolf]

22. Could a new president reverse previous signing statements?

I'm just wondering if a President Kucinich can retroactively declare that the executive branch no longer interprets a certain law that way or can this only be done at the time of the signing of the bill?

Anyone know?

:shrug:

[MockSwede]

25. Yes

Because they are executive branch signing statements.

[lonestarnot]

28. Not "should." They BETTER!

[AzDar]

8. K&R......n/t

:puke:

[AzDar]

9. Self-Delete: Dupe....

[CrispyQ]

11. U.S. Constitution -- RIP --nt

[alfredo]

12. And who gets to decide who's mail meets that criteria? What

checks are there on this power?


So much for the sanctity of the mail.

[Bjorn Against]

13. They have been doing this for at least a couple years, I know they opened my mail

I got a newsletter from the Anti-War Committee here in Minneapolis a couple years back which had already been opened and stamped "opened for postal inspection". All it was was a newsletter that was sent out to hundreds of others as well, but of course it was very critical of the Bush regime and their illegal war. All they need as evidence to open your mail nowdays is disagreement with Bush policies.

[madeline_con]

14. I thought there were already allowances to open mail...

"... in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials..."

So, firearms and explosives could stil get through up til now?

[jmowreader]

16. I wouldn't mind if he opened some of my mail...

but here's the house rules, Shrub: about half of what I get is bills. You open them, you pay them.

[Jeanette in FL]

17. Put a friendly message in all your correspondence

I have had my mail opened too in the past and had the stamped "Opened for Postal Inspection".

[sendero]

18. Number one..

... the USPS has always had and exercised the right to open mail under certain circumstances. This is not new.

Secondly, a signing statement is merely the opinion of the president and carries no force of law whatsoever.

Really, the hysteria over signing statements is absurd. The courts will eventually decide what a piece of legislation means, not some dickhead moron playing president.

[regnaD kciN]

20. It carries the "force of law" in that it's being done...

...and will continue to be done until the time if/when the SCOTUS decides to overturn it. (And good luck with the current bunch!) :scared:

[sendero]

21. All that has to happen..

... is that an interested party challenge it.

Really, signing statements are the opinion of the president. You may think the SC will always agree with his opinion, I think otherwise.

[Divernan]

23. Governors do not write "signing statements" for state laws.

It is the job of the judges to interpret the law and apply it. If the letter of the law is vague as to a specific case, the judge explains in her or his opinion how and why she/he interpreted the law. When a law is vague as to a specific case, the lawyers' briefs will cite how other courts have interpreted similar language, or quote the official legislative record for comments by the sponsors of the bill in debate on the floors of the state legislatures. Often a judge will include in her or his opinion the statement that the law as written is open to multiple interpretations and suggest that the legislatures revisit the subject and amend the law. Even then, decisions by a court in one county of a state are not binding on other counties. Only a state supreme court decision interpreting a law in a specific way is binding on the lower courts. I am not aware of any US Supreme Court opinion relying on a presidential signing statement as (definitive)"black letter law".

[Ms. Toad]

24. Their last comment was in a dissent.

That means that the members of the Supreme Court which believe that signing statements have weight LOST the argument. Even so, all the losers asserted was that the signing statement should have weight similar to legislative history. That means that if the law is not clear on its face, the court may look to the legislative history to determine the intent of the individuals who drafted the law. If the losers in the last supreme court decision ultimately win, the prize will be that IF AND WHEN the law itself is unclear the signing statement may be used to clarify the unclear portions.

That doesn't mean that I trust this particular supreme court - but so far, they have not given any weight to signing statements. And - the real weight of the signing statements comes into play in terms of enforcement of the law. Since the executive branch is charged with enforcing criminal and some civil law, the signing statements are a good signal as to what portions may or may not be selected for enforcement.

[texpatriot2004]

26. What mail? Between US Citizens? Any mail? nm

[Marr]

27. "Get government off my back", and into my mail, my bedroom, etc.

The self-proclaimed 'small government' crowd certainly seems to push for alot of government control.

[atre]

29. There's no way these "signing statements" are legitimate considerations

in interpretting statutes. Violates the Bicameral Clause, the Presentment Clause, and a whole host of other constitutional requirements.

[Rosemary2205]

30. Oh come on peoples, this could be fun!!

lets all start ordering porn from Iran. :evilgrin: