i know it comes as no surprise but bush attached yet another signing statment recently. this time to the postal reform act which he signed last month. it allows the government to open any mail "in exigent circumstances." this signing statement just gets rid of that pesky judicial approval thing bush seems to hate so much. tony snowjob said its not a change of policy. really? well then why the signing statment dumbass?


its another example of an expansion of power. just who gets to decide what an exigent circumstance is? murky, broad, and expansive, just like this administration likes to operate.


Statement May Allow Gov't to Open Mail - EarthLink - Top News

It's beginning to look more and more like 1984.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Kind of disgusting.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Is there a category for informed and questioning posters ?

It’s been done before by democrats. This is for emergency conditions only and does not include private citizens not involved in terrorism.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Heck, the govt can have my mail if they think it will help track down terrorists. Unlike neolibs, some of us are happy to help protect this country.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Is that like, Clinton did it first?

Bush Warned About Mail-Opening Authority - Recent 'Signing Statement' Seen as Stretching Law, Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2006:

Good question. If the existing law allows the government to open mail in emergencies, why the signing statement??

Link to Signing Statement

Link to H.R. 6407 - Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act

__________________
Curly

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

Reading the FULL signing statement makes it seem less severe, especially the part I bolded below.
None-the-less, Bush's use of signing statements in general makes me uncomfortable.

Not necessarily, but it has the power to. Laws are ambiguous, and signing statements give the executive the last say in interpretation. This can be dangerous or helpful, depending on how you look at it, but it is hard to say that a signing statement doesn't affect the law "in any way".

Samuel Alito, former Justice Department official under Reagan: [http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-...WG-Feb1986.pdf]. Upon reading this, one can take it cynically or constructively. I don't really know, though it seems that Alito's claim that Presidential understanding of a bill "is just as important" as Congressional understanding undercuts the Constitutional clause, "All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." He says candidly about interpretive signing statements, "it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law."

Source?

That's wonderful. Feel free to go about lobbying for zero privacy in the name of protecting this country. Or put yourself in prison, that may have the same effect, jviehe.


About the actual signing statement itself, the words are ambiguous, which is to be expected: The article has claimed that it provides the full signing statement, though that is false; here it is: [President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"], and here is the law itself, [Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)]. The second to last paragraph, as quoted in the article, is the relevant one. From one point of view, the President may just be pointing out that sometimes attaining a warrant beforehand will result in danger or death to certain persons and is therefore unrealistic; from another point of view, the President could be using some vague terminology to justify expanded government privilege at looking at your mail. I'm guessing that it is a little of both, personally.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

The problem I have is that everyone assume the govt wants this power for reasons other than protecting us. Since they have not demonstrated otherwise I have no problems. I have nothing to hide. Once we have defeated the enemy, this will no longer be neccesary and I will expect rights to be returned.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

We're Americans, that's what we do, we distrust people with power. It's a long and glorious tradition.

Yep, and with good reason, in my opinion

Jviehe, a look at history shows that powerful governments commit abuses, and given that the US are a republic under the rule of law, I think we should be very, very careful of how that law evolves. This is just a hypothetical and rhetorical question, but are we still a republic when the executive branch has the authority to freely interpret and execute law as its discretion? I know this particular instance of a postal reform law's signing statement is a far cry from the day of a dictatorial executive, but I believe the question bears asking.

I'm not all that familiar with Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but I tend to agree that any large organization tends to come under the excessive influence of a minority, and the United States federal government is no exception. I don't mean to comment on the positivity or negativity of such a rule by a "knowledgeable" few, a technocratic elite if you will, it is just that a "rule by the few" in general is a self-serving and self-perpetuating sort of government, no matter its original or nominal goals. For that reason, I don't believe it is wise to extend the power of government except in instances of extreme emergency, and America doesn't appear to be in such a situation right now. I've been told once before, on this site, that I should have been watching from one of the windows of the tower as the plane soared toward me, so I would know the terror of terrorism and would understand the need for granting the state more rights; as sick as that it is, it made me understand much more clearly that there is "nothing to fear but fear itself."

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

An act that has been going on for 10's of years now in the open, and always for the saftey of the people with in the country.

Fear the Government

I agree that is is just another expansion of the power Bush thinks he can get away with. But this time, I don't see any great need for uproar except on principle.

Too bad Bush doesn't read my bills then pay them.
Seriously though, I don't like the gvt in my business. Makes me want to get on the mailing list of all the whack job anti gvt organizations out there just to piss some gvt mail-snoop off.