![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...but evidently not.
The Seattle Times and the NY Times are saying that President Bush, while signing legislation on December 20 that overhauled postal regulations, added a signing statement "declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed."
Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, is quoted in the Seattle Times article as commenting: "The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming." In the NY Times article, Ann Beeson, an attorney with the ACLU, states: "The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress. What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?" She goes on to add: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and our federal criminal rules require prior judicial approval before domestic sealed mail can be searched."
Press Secretary Tony The Mouth of Sauron Snow claims that "This is not a change in law, this is not new." Tony's probably right. The law still says that first class mail can't be opened with a warrant, and the Bush administration has probably has already ignored that.
The NY Times article also mentions that, according to the American Bar Association, the 750 or so signing statements Bush has appended to signed legislation is more than the total of all other presidents combined, and "often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds."
Here's the text of the signing statement:
''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."
My dictionary defines "exigent" as meaning "pressing or demanding." Hmm... I wonder what would define a pressing or demanding circumstance for this administration?
The Seattle Times and the NY Times are saying that President Bush, while signing legislation on December 20 that overhauled postal regulations, added a signing statement "declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed."
Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, is quoted in the Seattle Times article as commenting: "The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming." In the NY Times article, Ann Beeson, an attorney with the ACLU, states: "The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress. What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?" She goes on to add: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and our federal criminal rules require prior judicial approval before domestic sealed mail can be searched."
Press Secretary Tony The Mouth of Sauron Snow claims that "This is not a change in law, this is not new." Tony's probably right. The law still says that first class mail can't be opened with a warrant, and the Bush administration has probably has already ignored that.
The NY Times article also mentions that, according to the American Bar Association, the 750 or so signing statements Bush has appended to signed legislation is more than the total of all other presidents combined, and "often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds."
Here's the text of the signing statement:
''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."
My dictionary defines "exigent" as meaning "pressing or demanding." Hmm... I wonder what would define a pressing or demanding circumstance for this administration?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
It's the latest thing in presidential power. Up until Reagan, there had only been 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush Senior, and Bill Clinton produced (according to the Wikipedia article) together had around 250 signing statements. At last count, though, Bush Jr. is past the 750 mark, all on his own...
Signing statements have generally been used in the past as appendages to legislation where the president says, in essence, "this is what the executive branch will interpret this language to mean, and this is how we'll implement or enforce it." Not altogether a bad idea when the language of the bill is vague or confusing, but the constitutional authority of signing statements isn't clear.
But Bush Jr. (again) has taken this a step further. Many of his signing statements have said in essence that "I'm signing this but it doesn't apply to me." This latest one's just another example. By law, sealed first class mail isn't allowed to be opened by any federal authority without a warrant. Bush is saying "Well, I can if I think I need to, and you can't stop me. Nyah, nyah, nyah." Because, after all, we're at war with the Tearists, and the Tearists could be mailing each other their nefarious plots, and we wouldn't know.