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."

OH NOES!!!

[fishybell]

Oh wait, good thing signing statements aren't generally regarded as law, but rather his view of the law.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[l2718]

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".

Re:OH NOES!!!

[MECC]

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

Re:OH NOES!!!

[spoonist]

Here [youtube.com] is the video of Shrub saying "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Re:OH NOES!!!

[spun]

I'm going to bitchslap the next right-wing pussy

Of course, if you do this, they will loudly complain that all liberals (you may not actually be one, but if you disagree with them, you are in their eyes) are hateful and mean spirited. Never mind that they will bitch-slap you every chance they get and then when you complain call you a liberal cry-baby, or claim that they were "only joking."

Of course, this is a catch-22 because if you don't fight back then you look like a pussy. If you fight back with logic, you come off as a boring dweeb, not a gung-ho action man. If you fight back with emotion, you are a hate-filled wingnut.

The average right-winger has no introspection. In fact, it would only get in the way. He needs to convince others that his world-view is correct, and he doesn't care how he does it. Looking dispationately at his own behavior would only weaken him, so he just doesn't do it. This leads to some amusing conversations where the poor right winger appears not to even remember completely contradictory statements he made just moments earlier. Facts, logic, rationality and consistencey are all irrelevant to convincing others to believe in his twisted paradigm.

Pretty much any statement a right winger makes about others is actually, through psychological projection brought about by an extreme lack of introspection, a direct statement about that right winger. Gays are bad? He's gay. Welfare cheats are bad? He'd mooch off his dying grandma. Lazy immigrants a re a drain on the system? He's a lazy git who never worked harder than he had too in his life. Liberal bias? Conservatives own the majority of the media. Liberals lack morals? He has the morals of starving weasel.

In order to translate from right-wingenese to reality-speak, just assume that whatever a right-winger says to others actually applies to himself. Their world view is based on lies and manipulation so in order to validate themselves, they must spread those lies and the culture of manipulation and dehumanization that goes along with them. Ever wonder why they so frequently rant about "Humanism?" It's because they hate humans, themselves in particular. They see humans as greedy, immoral, sinful creatures only capable of civilization and cooperation so long as someone with a big stick is watching over them. That is not, in fact, the case for most of us, but it is the case for the average right-winger.

Thus, they need to spread their lunacy, in order to drag us all down to their level.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[fatboy]

They see humans as greedy, immoral, sinful creatures only capable of civilization and cooperation so long as someone with a big stick is watching over them.

That's what I have always though about liberals. *OH WAIT!* Doh!

Re:OH NOES!!!

[LordKazan]

liberals actually try to fix human problems, rather than simplying claiming the magical free market will do so (despite the evidence that it hasn't and never will)

Re:OH NOES!!!

[spun]

Well, that is a simplification of things, but mostly true in my experience. There are many different breeds of liberal. I was describing the stereotypical Eastern Establishment Liberal, such as the Kennedy Clan. Good hearted, but just as fond of aristocracy and heirarchy as your average neo-con. You are describing the college/activist liberal, or perhaps the hippy/granola liberal. Different beasts entirely.

Remember, not all conservatives are the same, either. For example, some think the magical free market will fix everything, while others think the magical man in the sky will do it. Of course, none of them think they will be the ones to fix everything. Don't be ludicrous, that would require effort that isn't entirely selfish, and everyone knows that humans are completely selfish, right?

The problem with the magical free market is that it isn't free enough. If we just do away with all labor, environmental, safety and monopoly regulations, abolish all taxes and just let the most sucessful do whatever they please, then everything will magically work perfectly. Really. Trust us, why would we lie to you? Oh, to try to get you to pay for our mistakes? LALALALA I can't hear you! Personal Responsibility! Don't look behind that curtain over there, look over here! Morals! MORALS! MORALS!

Re:OH NOES!!!

[sg_oneill]

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.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[shaitand]

Begin Rant

Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.

Apparently, both the left and the right and all adherents of a two party system make their political decisions with an IQ of 3. It is especially sad is that some of those IQ 3 decision makers are extremely intelligent when they get away from politics.

The rest of us only emit a sad sigh as these idiots put one corrupt and power mongering parasite after the next into office. We helplessly watch as you decide which rights and freedoms we must give up this week by picking an (R) or a (D). Both your R's and D's seek to strengthen the power of their level of government rather than keeping the government to the absolute minimum required for society to function. Both cater to corporate special interests rather than the interests of the people. I hope against hope in my little heart of hearts that one day political parties will be abolished, and congress will spend an entire year doing nothing but repealing existing laws that run contrary to the interests of the common man rather than tacking on new ones.

If you'd like to really run with it, you might even hope that candidates will be chosen according to merit and intellect rather than popularity and purchased academic honors. It seems the children of extremely wealthy old school money always come away with a masters from an ivy league school. They must all be brilliant eh?

End Rant

Re:

[dangitman]

Of course, this is a catch-22 because if you don't fight back then you look like a pussy. If you fight back with logic, you come off as a boring dweeb, not a gung-ho action man. If you fight back with emotion, you are a hate-filled wingnut.

This is why we need to fight them with Chuck Norris.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[HTH NE1]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heckuva lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

I've changed it for you to reflect his usage of the language. (It's scarier that way.)

Re:OH NOES!!!

[SpaceLifeForm]

Obviously he is not writing these signing statements.

The proof is the use of the word 'exigent'.

He has no idea what that means, and he certainly
would have misspelled it.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Chris Burke]

Only if he considered himself being the dictator a hypothetical situation, otherwise the stated grammar is correct. :)

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well then I considerify myself a dictation only in a hypertheatrical situification.

Love, George.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Chris Burke]

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.

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.

The problem with Bush's wiretapping program is that he never got warrants, and never had probable cause to get a search. His agents never went to the FISA court that was specifically designed for these cases and rarely ever rejects a warrant request. Because, like I said, warrants can be granted retroactively there is no argument based on urgency against getting a warrant, and it is important to be aware of this when defenders of this policy bring up emergency situations. The only reason not to get a warrant from FISA is because there was no Probable Cause basis for the search, FISA would therefore not have granted a warrant, and the search was unreasonable and hence un-Constitutional.

So regarding this current signing statement, the question is, what situation does it fall under? The specific wording is not contained in the article. If all he is saying is "under emergency cases of Probably Cause I authorize the search and will worry about warrants later", that's okay. If he is saying "I authorize searches whenever I feel it is necessary for National Security and will not worry about warrants at all", then this is the same as the wiretapping. The President's idea of what constitutes a necessity for National Security is clearly not limited to cases involving Probable Cause, and hence his authorization would not be limited to searches which are Constitutional.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[snowgirl]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Chris Burke]

Actually, the legal idea that permits investigating a possble bomb in the mail is Exigent Circumstance not simply probable cause

Ah, thanks for the correction. I was using Probable Cause to mean Exigent Circumstance, when Probable Cause is only what you need to get a warrant, not bypass it.

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.

I've always thought that the 4th Ammendment was pretty clearly granting a right to privacy. If I turn "right to be secure against unreasonable searches" into a positive statement I get "right to privacy". That's what privacy is -- the right to not have people search through your business without justification. Also, it specifically states "right to be secure in their persons... and effects against unreasonable searches" which sounds to me like privacy of your person and any diary you might be carrying.

If that's not the case in practice, well, surprise surprise another of our Constitutional rights is trampled with hardly a murmor from the people. To me, that is exactly why cases like this are important. It's already bad enough how our Constitutional rights are ignored and denied us -- when the powers that be openly state that they do not intend to follow the Constitution, then the level of abuse is only going to be throttled up.

Re:

[thule]

The problem with Bush's wiretapping program is that he never got warrants, and never had probable cause to get a search. His agents never went to the FISA court that was specifically designed for these cases and rarely ever rejects a warrant request. Because, like I said, warrants can be granted retroactively there is no argument based on urgency against getting a warrant, and it is important to be aware of this when defenders of this policy bring up emergency situations. The only reason not to get a warran

Re:

[sdjl]

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.

Re:

[DrVomact]

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.

All of the law is mere "th

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Qzukk]

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now that he is directly countermanding the bills he passes, can we not finally admit that Bush has broken his oath as President?

but rather his view of the law.

Or are you claiming is that despite "his view of the law" he's not going to order anyone to open mail?

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[teflaime]

But he's using the Constitution to wipe his ass.

Re:OH NOES!!!

[soft_guy]

But he's using the Constitution to wipe his ass.

The trip down to the national archives every day must be quite a shlep.

Gerald Ford condemned domestic surveillance.

[reporter]

In 2004, Gerald Ford gave an interview to Bob Woodward of the "Washington Post". In the interview [freep.com], "Ford questioned President George W. Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq and said he never would have instituted the administration's domestic surveillance program."

Where is Gerald Ford when our nation needs him to rescue us from a cowboy?

Re:Gerald Ford condemned domestic surveillance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... you haven't heard? This is awkward...

Re:

[Bogtha]

Where is Gerald Ford when our nation needs him to rescue us from a cowboy?

Mods, are you kidding? Insightful? This should be +5, Funny. Ford's the guy that pardoned Nixon for things like this. Don't be fooled into thinking a bit of posthumous criticism means he's Bush's nemesis, actions speak louder than words, and Ford's actions clearly put him on Bush's side, not ours.

Re:Gerald Ford condemned domestic surveillance.

[HaloZero]

...Jim.

Re:

[msobkow]

I thought Congress had to prepare the legislation and the only right Bush had was to veto their proposals.

Did the American people ratify a new Constitution? Has the old one been burned?

Re:OH NOES!!!

[Daniel_Staal]

Did the American people ratify a new Constitution? Has the old one been burned?

No, and Yes.

Presidential Memo For Slashdot: +1, Patriotistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Call Your Senator [huffingtonpost.com] now and demand the arrest,
trial, conviction, and sentencing of AL-QAEDA's CHIEF OF [whitehouse.org]
OPERATIONS.

Thanks again for your support,
Kilgore Trout, ACTIVIST

The Actual Signing Statement

[ubuwalker31]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20 061220-6.html

"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."

Re:OH NOES!!!

[fyngyrz]

...this has nothing to do w/ technology or email at all.

No, of course not. Because technology oriented people never use or work with standard mail. It has nothing to do with you at all. Don't worry, it'll just affect those old people you see from time to time being wheeled into the rest homes. And those troublesome immigrants.

Same thing for phone taps, loss of habeas corpus, misuse of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws and punishments, free speech "zones", government support of religion, the prosecution of a war of aggression based on lies... none of these things have anything to do with you.

Hey, did you know Sony's PS3 won't play Blueray disks back in 720p?

Re:OH NOES!!!

[NitsujTPU]

There's some validity to a desire to talk about science and technology on Slashdot. It's "News for Nerds." This may be "Stuff that Matters," but it definitely is not "News for Nerds." We can't just say, "ZOMG! Politics is important, so lets make sure that we discuss it everywhere, and put our lives on hold otherwise."

Re:OH NOES!!!

[fyngyrz]

We can't just say, "ZOMG! Politics is important, so lets make sure that we discuss it everywhere, and put our lives on hold otherwise."

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm simply obtuse, but I fail to see how a story entitled "Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant" in a political section entitled "Your rights online" while the rest of slashdot pursues technical issues as per usual is in any way "putting our lives on hold otherwise."

I read the story, and commented (several times), because citizen's rights are a concern to me, having people's mail opened is a concern to me, and I'm definitely a "nerd." I find the idea that this issue is not important and/or inappropriate to the site or the particular section on the site to be nearly incomprehensible. Furthermore, "nerds", to me, is a collection of (mostly) pretty smart people with a fair amount of collective power; people, in other words, who I am interested in going over such issues with.

Your milage obviously varies. However... I suppose I have to ask: Why are you even reading the story? Did you fail to read the title, the section, the summary, or were you simply not interested in any of the technical topics offered to you today as alternatives to this story?

Obligatory quote

[l2718]

The right of the people to be secure in their ... papers ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...

Re: "unreasonable"

[l2718]

I alreayd wrote this in another post, but let me make the point again: to the extent Mr. Bush is saying "if we think we're looking at a letter bomb, we'll send the bomb squad first and worry about legal issues later", there's no controversy. However, considering past government behaviour under this president I would suspect that they would consider the current general "terrorism" paranoia to be sufficient to make the opening of any piece of mail they have a hunch about "reasonable".

Re: "unreasonable"

[skuzzlebutt]

Bingo...that's the issue, not the fact that signing statements don't hold water, nor that these things kind of, maybe violate the constitution. The fact that the current regime has made it crystal clear that they feel they have the right to take any action they desire, regardless of the downstream implications, the poor survey results, or the "legality" or such actions...that is scary as shit, folks. Example: the PATRIOT act, which actually has the word "terrorist" in the acronym, is regularly used to gather evidence in non-terrorism cases [wikipedia.org]. They did it, nobody sued (at least, successfully), so they set a precedent. Same thing with this crap: gosh, we knew it wasn't a bomb in that box being sent to Senator Harry Reid, but because search and seizure is now a gray area, we thought we'd just see what was in that package from the Hualapai tribal council... .

The fact that Bush has issued orders of magnitude more signing statements than any other sitting president is clear evidence that such behavior sits in his overall strategy, and the signing statements are to cover his bible-thumping, two-bit warlord ass when (if) we ever buck up and decide to run him out on a rail.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.

You're right, we're not as bad as Nazi Germany. Huzzah!

Re: "unreasonable"

[fyngyrz]

Your rhetoric is cheap, but telling.

The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?

Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.

The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.

If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.

Re: "unreasonable"

[vertinox]

put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.

I have personally been affected by the no-fly list even though I am not a target of the government campaign of "better security".

Every time I go to the airport to travel I expect to wait an extra while during the time they freak out over my name (which is very common actually) and then realize I'm not in my 40's and my middle name isn't the same as the other person (just the same initial). Then they apologize for the delay and I go on my way.

The first time was cute, but it happens every single time I go to the airport. I don't bother trying to use the automated baggage drop off teller because it won't let me without over ride from them so I always go to the counter first.

Re: "unreasonable"

[shaitand]

"Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong."

Have the department of homeland security been by to arrest ANYONE yet? Yes? Then your logic is obviously dead wrong.

Believe it or not, everyone who posts on slashdot does not have to be posting from a prison cell before there is a problem. The 'gestapo been buy to arrest you yet' measure is also WAY the hell beyond where I draw the line. The right of the lowest citizen to privacy when he phone sexes his wife or even talks to her in a mushy tone he would never let outsiders hear while she travels abroad on work trumps the latest installment of Christians versus Muslims the crusades have returned.

The bill of rights, the right to privacy, the limitations of government powers, the Constitution requirement for warrants in searches (which would include searching my communications), and the right to stockpile and bear arms should the law be twisted to allow the creation of a mad religious regime to come into power are what this country is about. Without those things we would be better off reverting to English subjects than subjecting ourselves to own corrupt government and hypocrisy.

Re: "unreasonable"

[shaitand]

"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates."

Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.

"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"

I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.

If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.

It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.

Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o

Re:Obligatory quote

[TheMeuge]

...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

There - fixed the emphasis for YOU.

Re:Obligatory quote

[wbren]

...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

There-fixed the emphasis for YOU.

Wait... oops

Re:Obligatory quote

[pluther]

...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

No problem then: Bush has no intention of having his people going through the hassle of getting a warrant before opening your mail...

Re:Obligatory quote

[Who235]

Unreasonable like without a warrant or probable cause?

There, fixed your bullshit for you.

Re:

[DigitalRaptor]

Here, let me fix it for real:

13. The right of the people to be secure in their papers and possessions against searches and seizures shall not be violated except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization.

No emphasis or "..." was needed. It's been fine for 2 centuries.

The important part the Mr. Bush is overlooking is "except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization".

The current administration has removed or ignored almost every

Re:Obligatory quote

[Nasarius]

Uh...where is that quote from? It's not the Bill of Rights. The appropriate amendment is the 4th, not the 13th (abolition of slavery), and I know "after jury authorization" is language that would never be in the Constitution. Perhaps you were looking for this [cornell.edu]:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:

[blofeld42]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016398.php [powerlineblog.com]

for a lawyer's view of the signing statement.

The actual signing statement is here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20 061220-6.html [whitehouse.gov]

Re:

[ArcherB]

How do we know if it is reasonable or not? Historically this was done via judicial review, but now we just assume anything Bush wants must be reasonable.

Here is what the Prez said, although I was not able to find an exact quote. This if from TFA:
He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions

I would assume emergency conditions to be something like:

• Return address is from Ted Kaczynski
• The package is ticking
• The envelope is leaking powder
• The envelope is stai

Re:Obligatory quote

[rkcallaghan]

Chacham wrote:

I would just like to comment, that i don't think that he isn't breaking anything. 1. Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.)

Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)

2. Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing.

From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?

He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.

3. The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable.

He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards, on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them. What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue? What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?

4. The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended.

Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.

~Rebecca

Re:Obligatory quote

[daVinci1980]

Man... You seem to have some reading comprehension problems.

First off, signing statements are no more legal than the line item veto, they just haven't been stricken down yet.

They're not legal for pretty much the same reason that line-item vetoes are illegal: the president is not granted the power to pick and choose the parts of the law that his branch of government executes. He either signs the whole law or vetoes the whole law. Once the law has been signed, he is obligated to enforce the law as it is written.

And speaking of the past usages of signing statements, did you know that President Bush has issued only a single veto since he took office, and has issued more signing statements [boston.com] than all other presidents combined? [wikipedia.org]

Also, if you reread the bit of the constitution that you quoted, you'll find that it doesn't list 'public safety' as a reason to declare martial law anymore than it says that it doesn't have to be declared (just exercised, as you seem to think). It says quite clearly that public safety may require the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion. Habeas corpus is not martial law. [wikipedia.org]

We are neither being invaded nor are we rebelling (yet), and since Bush and the executive branch haven't claimed to suspend habeas corpus (although they clearly have suspended it), there's no legal ground for the executive branch to act illegally. And beyond that, suspending habeas corpus doesn't imply that the government can act illegally, only that they can effectively jail people and not provide the body while the writ has been suspended. The GP was quite correct in saying that the government must be quite explicit about denying the writ and deal with the consequences thereof.

Re:

[markov_chain]

The problem is that all these policing measures in the name of anti-terrorism won't really do much to stop terrorist attacks, while they keep eroding the freedoms that make this country great. The country in the time of the founding fathers faced far greater threats than a bunch of these fundie twits.

yeah, so am I

[skuzzlebutt]

Ordinarily I don't respond to ACs, but...

The framers created the constitution and bill of rights because they were facing the type of threats that we are currently facing: totalitarian government control. Terrorism is the worst thing our country has had to face in possibly centuries, granted, and it needs to be dealt with directly. But, there is very clear evidence that the Bush family and their buddies want to make their stamp on history as not the regime which battled terrorism abroad, but as the team who brought the term "executive power" back into the oval office. Rumsfeld and Cheney both worked for Gerald Ford, and were appalled at the amount of power taken away from the executive branch after Watergate, and they supposedly blamed Ford for that. The absolutely phenomenal amount of liberties being shed under the flag of Fighting Terrorism, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc, provide evidence to that end.

Do you feel safer since 9/11? Are you confident the Freedom Tower will stand forever because W can open your mail? Did hanging Hussein and killing 3,000 american soldiers as punishment for Hussein executing 148 Sunnis shut down the suicide-bomber factories? Don't even get me started on the irreversable damage done to the establishment clause...This is about control and power, not security.

That's why we can meet in groups and discuss politics without control. That's why we can protest in public. That's why we can carry guns. That's why we can publish information and criticisms of the government. Once you let those rights go (which W has been doing a great job on, summarily), it is really hard to go back; and if we can't discuss what our leaders are doing publicly and criticise them and protest their actions and not have to worry about if that letter to the editor of the Times was intercepted and "stored as evidence of terrorism", then we lose our quasi-democracy and become a full-fledged plutocracy/oligarchy, just like the one we went to war to split from in the 1770's.

Re:yeah, so am I

[dcam]

Terrorism is the worst thing our country has had to face in possibly centuries, granted, and it needs to be dealt with directly.

Rubbish. Terrorism has been blown up to be the worst thing your country has had to face in centuries, it isn't the worst thing it ground. I also seem to recall a long and destructive civil war being fought in the in the 1860s. I believe 2 world wars were fought in the 20th century, with over half a million deaths of US has had to face in centuries. I seem to recall your country was invaded by the British in 1814 and the white house was burnt to the soldiers (combined). I've heard something about a great depression. I seem to recall a significant threat from communism, both idealogical and physical.

I also remember an American president facing a real threat saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". You now have an American president facing a minor threat whipping the contry into hysterical fear.

Re:yeah, so am I

[dpilot]

Sorry, but I have to disagree, here.

On Jan 21, 2001 the US government turned its attention completely away from the Middle East and Muslim radicals. Their centerpiece, their entire focus became getting out of the ABM treaty so they could restart Star Wars development and deployment. During that time, one of Clinton's aids stayed on, trying to alert the administration to the dangers, but was given no traction. Think back to the 9/11 commission, and the August briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US." That too was ignored - iirc some fessed up to having seen it, others didn't. Even the unusually high levels of intelligence chatter noted during the summer of 2001 didn't get any significant attention or action.

Actually Bush isn't my #1 problem here, it's Condi Rice. When the report said, "Failure of imagination," it was HER job to connect the dots and do the imagining.

Did you see Clinton on the "attack interview?" From everything I saw, the Clinton administration was trying, was engaged in the Middle East and was paying careful attention to Muslim radicals.

As for feeling safer after 9/11, try reading what Bruce Schneier writes. First off, the stuff that has made the real difference after 9/11 has been cleaning out Afghanistan, and ordinary police work - perhaps extraordinary police work, but still police work. Only 2 things have really made air travel safer - locking cockpit doors and air travellers no longer expecting that they will be safe if they sit back like sheep.

For the most part, the crap - the intrusive datamining, the warrentless stuff, RealID, silly airport inspections haven't done SPIT to make us safer. They just annoy us, chew up money, and whittle away at the foundations of our democracy. One relevant term is "Security Theater" look like lot's happening when nothing effective is.

By the way, now that we're bogged down in Iraq, the Taliban is making gains in Afghanistan, undoing the effective work we did, there.

Some people seem to really have a bug up their orifices about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's no angel, he was doing things that he shouldn't have, the whole situation was a mess. But it wasn't worth what we've done to ourselves in the past few years.

Re:So sick of this crap

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Leaving out the hyperbole, cant, and invective, A. Coward wrote:

>The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid.

I beg to disagree. The men responsible for the Bill of Rights, which took effect in 1791, were still around a few years later when our country was physically invaded by foreign troops. In fact, the chief author, James Madison, was President when the Brits marched in and burned the White House to the ground along with a few other important bits of Washington, DC. Since there were still plenty of Loyalist collaborators around, you could make the same arguments about opening mail, warrantless searches, etc. being in the interest of "national security." The biggest threat to our liberty then was the same as it is now, authoritarian government.

Separation of powers

[BWJones]

Bush keeps saying he wants everyone to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I don't think "bipartisan" means what he thinks it does. Rather bipartisan appears to mean to him "do it my way" or "because I say so" and "I'm the decider".

Seriously though, and back on topic: Even the American Bar Association has described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our Constitutional system of separation of powers". When is the American public going to wake up on both sides of the isle here? From a Republican standpoint, this administration has gone so far off from Republican ideals, that it is not even funny. Republicans used to be the ones who were for a strong military, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives and lower taxes and what we have is a military that is weaker and smaller now than it has been in decades, we have the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of the world, fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations. From the Democratic side, well..... those guys just got hosed for the last few years and they do not appear smart enough to position anyone capable enough to compete with someone even as unappealing and dangerous to our lives as Bush and Co.

I worry for our future as we have signed away many of our Constitutional rights and protections, we have alienated many foreign countries and allies after squandering perhaps the most support we've ever had in history after 9/11, we are entrenched in a combat zone that has very little positive outcome potential, we are signing away our financial future through one of the largest deficits in history and Cheney is on record as saying deficit spending does not matter.

Re:Separation of powers

[jfengel]

Deficit spending isn't as obviously evil as you might think. As long as you're borrowing money cheaply and putting it into something that appreciates more quickly, it's actually in your interest to borrow as much money as possible.

A mortgage is considered an excellent investment, and it's deficit spending. In fact, many financial advisors will tell you to buy the biggest house you can afford, and pay it off slowly. That's because real estate is a good investment in general, what with the population continually rising. (Confusing matters a bit is that the tax breaks on mortgage interest make it an even better deal, though that's artificial.)

Similarly, a wise company will always have a debt: it borrows money to invest in itself and make new stuff to be even more profitable.

Mind you, all of this assumes you're investing in something valuable. Money borrowed and then wasted is the real evil. Blame the waste, not the borrowing. Cutting the borrowing is one way to limit waste, but Congress is particularly adept at finding ways to waste money. A favorite is to put the pork on the budget, deliberately under-funding something critical. Then when that runs out of money, they pass an "emergency appropriation", which doesn't count on the budget. (It shows up in the debt, though.)

Eliminating earmarks will help, but at $24 billion they're a drop in the bucket of a multi-trillion dollar budget. The real waste is in things like farm subsidies to agribusinesses and weapons programs the Pentagon doesn't want. Try cutting those, though, and watch people scream. Everybody wants the budget cut, except for the bits that come in to their state. Those are necessary.

Re:

[happyemoticon]

Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140 [theonion.com] "Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self"

Re:

[Mongoose Disciple]

We got rights back after the Revolutionary war, the civil war, WWI, WWII, we'll get whatever is lost after this war as well.

That would imply that the "War on Terror" is meant to have an end. I suggest to you that this is optimistic.

There notably isn't anything about the KKK in the article you link. But, for the moment, assuming this is true... that's an even stronger argument for limits on presidential power and preservation of civil rights -- because it's not about if you trust this president, it

So?

[duerra]

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.

Re:So?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006 on July 26, 2006. [2]The bill would:

      1. Instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. ("No State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.")
      2. Instruct the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Con troversy_over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_st atements [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Hijacked Public]

The problem is that long before any court sets things straight all of the people who are harmed by actions taken based on a signing statement will have had their lives more or less destroyed. Read My Country Against Me, which is Wen Ho Lee's recounting of all of the nefarious carryings on surrounding his trial for being a spy for China. The guy was ruined, and when a court finally got around to apologizing the world had moved on, that part of the story didn't get the same front page coverage as his arrest.

If you haven't noticed

[admiralh]

The right has been stacking the courts for the last 26 years (excluding a brief respite during the Clinton admin, but in that case, they simply refused to act on over 60 of Clinton's nominations).

Remember the "Unitary Executive" fights during the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings? Bush is saying with these signing statements that he is only subject to the laws he wants to be, and can run the country how he sees fit (the MBA at work here). This is the "Unitary Executive". I believe that Alito, Scalia, an

That is NOT Unitary Executive

[alexhmit01]

Unitary Executive is a legal theory that holds that there are 3 branches of government, executive, legislative, and the courts. It doesn't question Chief Justice Marshall's assertion that the court is a co-equal branch (clearly NOT in the constitution, it was a much smaller branch, with executive and legislative being relatively equal), it doesn't even question the Warren Court's assertion that it is the most important branch (a bizarre assertion, but suggesting the the court can decide to throw out someth

Re:

[twifosp]

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.

It's not so much legality as it is accountability. Try this scenario on for size: The FBI, CIA, or NSA (or some sect of one) begin opening up tons of United States Citizen mail without warrants. The reason doesn't matter at all, but just imagine they started openin

Wait, Bush can read?

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'm not so surprised that Bush is claiming he can read mail without a warrant as I am that he can read at all.

Turns out

[antifoidulus]

Bush just wants to maximize his chances of winning Ed McMahon's $10 million.

He's like Superman!

[Malakusen]

Bush keeps pulling BS powers out of his ass based solely on letting him do whatever he wants to do at any given time.

"Hmm... I want to eavesdrop on phone calls, but as the law is written now, I can't. Fortunately, I can use my Presidential Wiretapping Power to authorize warrantless wiretapping!"
"Hmm... I want to torture prisoners to get information that, while not accurate, will support my foreign policy goals. But it's against US and international law. Aha! Super Secret Presidential Rendition Powers!"

And so on. Somebody really needs to tell Bush he can't go to Superdickery.com anymore.

Re:

[ubergenius]

Everyone keeps talking about Bush like he is some evil, snickering sociopath, sitting in his dark cave-like office, cackling at his new diabolical plan to become ruler of the world. However, I see it very differently: Has anyone even considered that he is probably just genuinely terrified of the perceived terrorist threats, and that is why he is acting in a panicky, reactive manner and making stupid, irresponsible policies and decisions? I find that much more likely.

I personally very much disagree with a

IMPEACH - the only tag needed.

[HiredMan]

Seriously, who can argue that as the person in charge of enforcing the rule of law and "protecting the constitution" that George W. Bush is doing the exact opposite. He's not just not doing it he's actively working to undermine the entire idea of separation of powers and role of the executive branch.

Impeach.

Now.

=tkk

PS See you at GITMO!

Reading this makes me think of this quote....

[8127972]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

From - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin

The Character of State

[Toby The Economist]

The State is increasing its powers to monitor citizens - both where they are, and the conversations they have.

This is also the State which is increasingly introducing extra-judicial handling of terrorists - holding them indefinitely without trial, interrogation methods which are tantamount to torture, no access to lawyers, no publication of their status.

This is also the State which has been gradually extending extra-judicial methods (warrantless monitoring, for example) to citizens.

It is my view a State which fails to understand the importance of civil and human rights, for example in this case in its increasing intrusion in private lives, will, *as you would expect*, fail to apply those rights in other areas - in this case, justice for those accused of crimes and they way they are treated.

This bullshit has gone on much too long...

[FunWithKnives]

I encourage everyone, no matter what your political leanings are, that is sick and tired of this president's blatant misuse of executive power, to consider sending a "Memorial of Impeachment" to incoming Speaker Pelosi on January the 15th of this year. You can read more about this, and print out the Memorial (pdf file) at ImpeachForPeace.org [impeachforpeace.org]. I've already printed mine out, signed it, and got it notarized. It's sitting on my computer desk, waiting for the 15th. I urge everyone to do the same. It may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, and we may be the ones that are able to initiate the impeachment procedure.

Re:

[avatar4d]

YES! Finally Cheney is in charge! Now we can shoot the terrorists in the face...

Re:

[advocate_one]

Hold on to the other copy of the letter until Jan. 15th, after the new congress, when we're having everyone send them in. (next wave will go to a different, more impeachment friendly, congress person in March. Stay tuned.)

That's right -- to make a big impact, we're having everyone send it in on the same date (Over 350,000 downloads so far representing over 1.2 million mailings). We hope to flood the congress with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure them to act on the memorials.

State of emergency

[Black Parrot]

A "state of" emergency has ever been the excuse for taking away people's liberties. GWB thinks 9/11 gives him the right to do whatever he pleases, constitution be damned.

Tell you what, George...

[markbt73]

You can read our mail... if we can read yours.

Deal?

Nothing new...

[Daemonstar]

From the statement [whitehouse.gov] (emphasis mine):

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.

From the posted article:

"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

"You have to be concerned," a senior U.S. official agreed. "It takes executive-branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

In his signing statement, he refers to "exigent circumstances" and "specifically authorized by law", referring to foreign intelligence in the latter comment. This is something new? No where does it say that the government will be going through peoples' mail, like the tone of the article suggests. Many entities have "exigent circumstance" exceptions. You don't think that if local EMS, fire, or police are bound by a rule, that, if an emergency happens, they don't have authority to exceed that rule? There are many examples in law for this specific purpose (reference Penal Code, Family Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, etc.).

If someone claims to have mailed a nasty toxic substance, or if there is probable cause to believe that something like that has occurred, then law enforcement/EMS better be there to take care of it. The post office doesn't have the resources to handle such tasks; let those who have experience with emergency situations handle it.

I agree that such a claim can be the potential for abuse, but that comes with just about everything.

Recurring meme?

[UnknowingFool]

Celebrities should not comment on science [slashdot.org]
Bill Gates comments on robotics [slashdot.org]
and now:
George Bush comments on constitutional law
The scary part is that one of these is really dangerous.

And I equally claim that Bush is not an ignoramus

[Rinisari]

Thoughts:

1. Yet another reason to use encrypted email
2. Yet another reason to impeach him [indymedia.org]
3. Yet another reason to abolish presidential signing statements [sourcewatch.org]
4. Yet another reason to 'not trust the government'

The constant barrage of unconstitutionality baffles me. This man just keeps adding and adding to the reasons why he's [commondreams.org] the [rollingstone.com] worst [littleindia.com] president [hnn.us] ever [washingtonpost.com].

I, for one...

[Guppy06]

... look forward to the pending constitutional crisis triggered when a Postal Inspector places an FBI agent under arrest.

What The Hell Is Going On In The U.S.?

[Petersko]

Does the guy have to lie about a blowjob to get impeached?

Re:New Congress

[SetupWeasel]

Yes, but they have only been in power... today. Can we give them 24 hours or so?

Re:New Congress

[eln]

Yes, the new Congress will immediately pass a bill making signing statements illegal. Unfortunately, President Bush will attach a signing statement to that law invalidating it.

Re:New Congress

[jfengel]

I can't imagine what they'd do about it. They can complain, but the separation of powers means that the executive branch has essentially infinite power to execute the laws according to its own interpretation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court itself can issue its rulings but depends on the good will of the executive branch to actually do it.

Congress' main check on that power is the ability to impeach. If the President violates the laws or court decisions, then it's a "high crime and misdemeanor", and they can remove him. That's the nuclear option, but the Constitution forbids any other control. It's a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.

In practice the President has always had to execute the laws more or less in line with what Congress said when they passed them, precisely because the nuclear option is sitting there. But Bush is discovering that really he can do whatever he wants, no matter what the law actually says. He likes to think he's doing it to preserve the security of the country, but I've got a terrible feeling he's destroying that village in order to save it.

Re:

[trianglman]

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.

I believe

[Tony]

I believe they currently need a warrant. They have dogs sniff, the dogs go berserk, they have probable cause, and they get a warrant.

I believe that's how it's currently done. I may be wrong.

Bush is saying they don't need probably cause-- they can just open it.

Re:Signing statements are so meaningless

[geoffspear]

Have you seen the Supreme Court lately? At least 4 of them would be happy to let Bush cross out the entire 4th Amendment from the original copy of the Constititution in the National Archives with a magic marker, and he could probably get a 5th to go along with him if he claims that he really needed to read everyone's first class mail to keep the Terrorists from killing us all.

Re:

[goldspider]

Care to qualify that with some kind of evidence or precedence? Or are you simply assaulting them for their broad label of "conservative"?

Re:Canada looks better and better

[geoffspear]

Thomas Jefferson badly paraphrased Ben Franklin just like everyone on Slashdot does? Neat. But I bet Alexander Hamilton modded him -1 Redundant, the bastard.

Re:Canada looks better and better

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is looking better and better all the time. The US clearly is not the freest nation. I believe Thomas Jefferson is tossing in his grave. His expression, "Those that would give up liberty for security get none and deserve neither," says it all. Bush just wants to be an autocrat. Hopefully, the democrats will put the kibosh on this one.

Honestly, don't come to Canada if you believe that it is a more democratic or free country than the US ...

• The Prime Minister Appoints all Senators for life, the senators are supposed to be regionally representative but their distribution is completely unequal.
• Judges are appointed by the prime minister
• The heads of all crown coporations and departments of the government are appointed by the PMO
• The Federal goverment has moved into Provincial Jurisdiction and forces their will on the provinces by controlling taxation
• MPs are supposed to be representative of population, but currently a vote from someone in eastern provinces is the equilivant of 1.5 fotes in western provinces

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.

Re:

[srmalloy]

"I sincerely wish we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is
trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." -- Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801.

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

"Lie about sex" while under oath in court. Amusingly, we take the compromise of our judicial process quite seriously, even if judges are bone-headed assholes. When you're in court and under oath, you NEED to pass on the CORRECT information to the court for the system to work; if you don't, you can manipulate the system into doing anything, like finding innocent people guilty as murderers and having them put to death. We don't try to draw a fuzzy line here; if you willfully lie, and we can prove you knew

Re:

[Alchemar]

SOOO Knee jerk:

1st Amendment - Free speech zones and suspected terrorist are not allowed to talk to the press because it might reveal information or incite violence

4th Amendment - Warrentless phone taps

5th Amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - GITMO

6th Amendment - "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." - GITMO

8th Amendment - ", nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

You misread the article, at best...

[DragonWriter]

President Bush isn't claiming any new found Presidential power.

Yes, he is.

The entire article is extremely slanted and only down near the bottom is it revealed that Presidents have always had such power.

This is not at all true. Near the bottom, the article does not "reveal" that "Presidents have always had such power". It instead quotes a White House spokesman that doesn't even claim Presidents have always had such power, but instead that the Constitution does not forbid the government to engage in such searches. While this is certainly true, it is irrelevant: statute law can restrict the authority of the executive beyond the limits the Constitution places on the government. The Constitution places an outer limit on what the law may allow, but not everything that is within the scope permitted to the government by the Constitution is legal for the President, particularly when law is passed expressly forbidding the action at issue.

So that the Constitution permits warrantless searches in certain circumstances, and that those exceptions might apply to the mails as well, has no bearing here.

The fact is this: Bush is signing a law adding to the protection of first-class mail beyond what is obligatory under the 4th Amendment while claiming the right to ignore it in every case in which the provisions of the law aren't redundant with those of the 4th Amendment, directly in opposition to his oath and duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Re:Hmm.. 2nd Amendment

[Guppy06]

"but at the same time complain about the 2nd Amendment and the general pro-gun attitudes of Republicans."

We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?

"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."

If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.

"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."

They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.

The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?