![[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:
Re: Bush is insane...
But that stubborn clinging to belief-that-you're-right-against-all-odds is a detriment and a genuine problem when that person is a) mistaken or wrong, and b) in charge. In my fiction workshops, I always tell the students that if most of the people in the workshop tell you that your ending isn't properly foreshadowed, then you'd really better consider that they're right. Yes, you're still The Writer and it's ultimately your choice to make the revision or not, but when everyone's telling you that it's not working, the odds are it's really not working rather than you're right and everyone else is wrong.
It's not insane to fail to take the advice. It's just really, really stupid.
From:
Leave it to a writer...
I agree that there are hundreds of examples when failing to follow the prevailing opinion might be the superior choice. However, I don't think that's what's going on with W. His convictions rise not from a personal belief system or an expertise in political theory, but they do come from his life experiences. His own life has led him to the conclusion that he can choose to follow his own path without serious repercussion. So he does. Don pointed this out to me...what do you think?
Meanwhile the Democratic party continues to disappoint. No smoking in the lobby says Nancy. Great. Did she (or any other representative) do anything proactive to influence the President's new policy on Iraq? Not that has been reported...instead they show up in the eleventh hour to hear what he has to say and complain that they were told what his policy would be..not consulted. Come on! They knew they weren't being consulted last week. They didn't really expect to be asked for their input the day of his address. It was a media event for them. They used it as another opportunity to act indignant.
And because I can never stop once I get going....can you believe that the first day of congressional business was Tuesday because Monday was the Ohio St./Florida game? Great reason not to go to work...wish I had thought of that.
Crikey.
A.
From:
Re: Leave it to a writer...
"Meanwhile the Democratic party continues to disappoint." I'm not disappointed... yet. Like many, I really don't see any good strategies for Iraq at this point. No matter what we choose to do, there are going to be severe repercussions. So it doesn't surprise me that the Dems don't currently have an "Iraq policy" beyond "Whatever W wants to do, we don't like it." I think it's going to take some time for their stance on Iraq to coalesce.
"can you believe that the first day of congressional business was Tuesday because Monday was the Ohio St./Florida game?" *Sigh* Business as usual, I guess, no matter who's in charge...
From:
Re: Leave it to a writer...
A.