Pushing the envelope — Day II

January 5, 2007

Yesterday was an unusually busy news day, but the White House signing statement expanding the president’s authority to open Americans’ mail without a warrant sparked quite a bit of interest.

For their part, the Bush gang insisted that the expansive new powers are no big deal and the president was not claiming any new executive authority.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said the statement Mr. Bush issued in signing postal legislation was merely a restatement of existing law allowing mail to be opened without a warrant in “exigent circumstances” to protect public safety.

“All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for, in exigent circumstances, for such inspections,” Mr. Snow said. “It has been thus. This is not a change in the law. This is not new.”

It’s an odd argument. If the signing statement merely restated existing law, why bother with the signing statement at all? Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, noted the government has long been able to legally open mail believed to dangerous, but a court order is necessary to open other suspect mail, which necessarily makes the signing statement different. “The administration is playing games about warrants,” Martin said. “If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?”

Indeed, Snow’s unpersuasive arguments notwithstanding, some of the same lawmakers who approved the postal legislation that sparked the signing statement, don’t understand why the president thinks he can pass his own laws.

The Republican sponsor of a postal reform bill called on President Bush yesterday to explain why he used it to claim he can open domestic mail without a search warrant.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine questioned Bush’s controversial Dec. 20 “signing statement” in which he stated if there were an emergency he wouldn’t need a warrant to open letters. The bill he signed into law that day, co-sponsored by Collins, requires search warrants for mail.

“It is my hope that the administration will clarify its intent with this recent statement,” said Collins, a GOP moderate.

For that matter, in a follow-up piece, the New York Daily News also noted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in 2005 that warrantless mail searches “would be highly unusual,” and “even then you’d have to go to a judge after the fact and explain what you’ve done.” But that’s not reflected in the new signing statement at all.

The flap has also not gone unnoticed by the new congressional majority. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Bush’s signing statement a “last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law” protecting the privacy of mail users.

And as for the big picture, I’ll give Brennan Center for Justice lawyer Jonathan Hafetz the Quote of the Day: “This opens the door into the government prying into private communications. It’s something we associate with a totalitarian or police state.”

Stay tuned.

It’s amazing, and tragic, this man called Bush now believes himself to be King Louis XIV. It’s also stupifying how unrelentlessly the family called Bush keeps pushing itself upon the American people as some kind of birthright royalty. Where are the Jacobins? -Kevo

  • It’s time to put an end to Presidential Signing Statements. Congress should pass a law stating that any Executive Branch interpretation contradicting the plain meaning of a statute shall be disregarded by the Courts.

    If Bush opposes a bill, let him use his veto. But these signing statements risk are assertions of executive power that are not granted by the Constitution. The President cannot pick and choose the sections of a law that will be enforced.

    Democrats and Republicans must oppose a reinterpretation of the Constitution that threatens the powers of the Congress and the courts.

  • And Collins continues to trust this administration…

    No wonder they closed ‘her’ NAS Brunswick. They knew that they could screw her over and she’d still come back for more. I expect Portsmouth to go next.

  • Bush’s collapse has hit the paranoia phase. Remember, we are all with him or we’re with the terrorists. The last elections showed Bush there are a lot of domestic terrorist supporters and he needs to take some drastic internal measures as a result. See you all in Guantanamo?

  • This reminds me of crook Nixon’s famous assertion: “If the President does it, it means it’s not illegal.” Right out of the mouth of a malignant narcissist.

    Bush’s signing statements amount to a total assault on the separation of powers, the office of the President, and the rule of law.

    Using the calculus of that wingnut freak regarding the Democrats in Congress, he (Bush) should be considered a target for assasination.

  • Congress should pass a law stating that any Executive Branch interpretation contradicting the plain meaning of a statute shall be disregarded by the Courts.

    …to which Bush would add a signing statement, negating the bill…

    ***
    I wonder if anyone has ever punched George W. Bush in the face. I’m guessing never. Perhaps if someone had, sometime in his life, he wouldn’t be such a fucking asshole, now. A punch in the face can make one humble and reflective. One good punch in Bush’s ugly face might have changed history and saved thousands of lives.
    ***

    Bush deserves impeachment, removal from office, and a life term in prison.

  • “It has been thus. This is not a change in the law. This is not new.”

    Translation: We’ve been doing it for a while, we just wanted to put it in writing.

    And WTF does “It has been thus.” mean? Aside from “I can’t think of anything to say so I’ll make some passive voice statement that sounds impressive but means jackshit, just like everything else I say.”

    2007 Prediction – The Deciderator, unable to adjust to the new order of things proudly, publicly and irrevocably embraces his other title: Eternal Emperor of Batshitville. Could be interesting in a ‘Get ready, here come the tanks’ sort of way.

  • And yet lying about a blowjob was worthy of impeachment?

    What the fuck does this shit get?

  • Orange is clearly right. The signing statement reflects first that they declare the right to ignore this law, but second (and more important) that they have been engaging in this practice for some time.

    Many actions of the Administration in the past couple of years relate to covering, or post-facto providing legal cover, for things they did in the first few years.

  • I’ve really had it with these activist presidents legislating from the White House.

    And yet, Congressional Republicans are demanding a minority bill of rights for themselves.

  • Why haven’t these people been taken into protective custody and secretly jailed in some east European country?

  • I think a few more people just fell off the George Bush bus – Americans don’t like it when you start going through their mail. As more time passes and we get further away from 9/11, people will start to remember that civil liberties are important (still) and the libertarian streak in all of us, that the government should keep their nose out of my business, flares up.

    It has been thus. Snow is such a douchebag. It’s like he’s trying to sound British or something. Only Tony Blair can shovel horseshit and make it sound good.

    Oh wait, I could have used my new favorite saying there: “Just because there’s shit in the room doesn’t mean you got a pony for Christmas.”

  • I remember that less than three years ago, I objected to the right’s use of the term “Bush Hater” to describe people who disagreed with the President’s policies. Well, I guess I’ve flip-flopped, cuz I don’t mind the term at all any more. Suits me to a T.

  • When will Republican congrescritters understand that bush doesn’t respect them as Republicans or as congressional members, has borderline contempt for the legislative process, and only a surface respect for our system of government. When will they understand that along with all of that, his and his henchmen’s authoritarian mindset, Dick Cheney, and their ugly obsequiousness has led us to this situation.

  • “This reminds me of crook Nixon’s famous assertion: “If the President does it, it means it’s not illegal.” Right out of the mouth of a malignant narcissist.” –Timpanist #5

    That was my thought exactly. Obviously, the Regal Moron didn’t pay attention to how that one turned out.

  • I have often referred to members of this administration as the “Bush Crime Family”. I think it’s an accurate description in every way. In keeping with this I think it’s time we started referring to our President and Vice-President the same way we do to other notorious criminals (assassins, murders, rapists, etc.) by using all three names. I don’t know the reason for that tradition (wanted posters?), but it’s there.

    Hardly an exhaustive list of examples: Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, Sara Jane Moore, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, John Wilkes Booth, Clyde Champion Barrow, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Charles Arthur (aka “Pretty Boy”) Floyd, John Eric Armstrong, Kirk Douglas Billie, John Wesley Hardin [sic, in spite of Dylan], Arthur Gary Bishop, Kenneth Eugene Bruce, Frank Ray Chandler, Norman Richard Cleary, Charles “Lucky” Luciano. Add to this list today’s top criminals, George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney.

  • Heh. Guillotines are easy, but firing squads are even easier, and I’ve never seen two men who belong in front of one more than Shrub and Dick.

  • ***Drop the coy act. We know about the Decapitator 3000 in your basement.***
    ——————-Comment by The Answer is Orange

    Dammit, Orange—can’t you keep a secret? Just for that, I’m not telling you about the stuff Saddam put in out the garage.

    HEY BUSH! YA’ READIN’ THIS?

  • The Executive Branch has increased it ability to create an imbalance of the three branches thru the years.

    Instead of having a health checks and balances consisting of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government, the Executive branch has become very effective in bypassing Constitutional Laws.
    In the name of” protection against terrorism” this branch has also infringed on the US Bill of Rights.

    This latest attempt to bypass our Judicial and Legislative system, by changing certain words in a Presidential Statement, reflects a calculated effort to obtain Executive privileges that should not exist.

    There have been over 750 Executive Statements signed by President Bush since he has been elected to the Presidency.
    Very Alarming.

    In the following paragraph, the word EXIGENT is used in the Executive Statement that President Bush signed.

    “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.”

    The word EXIGENT means;
    1. Requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing.
    2. requiring a great deal, or more than is reasonable.

    Such circumstances described in the statement could pertain to anything by the Executive Branch as “urgent.”

    Remember the news stories about phone snooping without warrants on US citizens and the telephone companies providing information to the NSA?

    The US Justice Department wanted to investigate the Executive Branches possible involvement in Unconstitutional activities in regard to authorizing the NSA to listen and record phone conversations of Americans WITHOUT warrants.
    The NSA informed the Justice Department investigators that they did not have a “high enough” security clearance to access the information requested for there investigation.
    When the Justice Dept. requested to be assigned the appropriate Security Level, the NSA DENIED their request.

    The US Justice Dept. exists to investigate possible crimes against Americans by any Branch of the government, organized crime, or entities that break our established laws.
    They dropped their investigation after several attempts to obtain security clearance by the very agency that was possibly breaking Constitutional Law under orders from the Executive Branch.

    My fears about an imbalance of power greatly increased after this fragrant disregard for our Constitutional Laws was conducted. By blocking attempts of an investigation, our ability to ensure JUSTICE was blocked.

    Now the letter issue has been brought to light and I wonder what other laws maybe ignored or broken.

    Whenever a government uses any excuse to bypass established laws that are designed to maintain a balance of power and the basic rights of it citizens, the liberties and freedoms of its people cannot only be redefined, they can be taken away.

    The United States of America is still a very young country.
    I can only hope it will continue to flourish under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and not under the perceptions of a few people that fell like they are justified in changing or bypassing the laws to achieve their own actions.

    Is this fear of mine justified?

    Is my concern a real one?

    I am proud to be an American and am still confident that the combined efforts of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our government will ensure a balance of power in all three branches.

    Until I feel like a balance exists, I will continue to have more concern for our government’s well being than I have for any domestic or international terrorist group.

    • Comments are closed.