[quote]pookie wrote:
Many people claim that Bush uses signing statements as a kind of “line item veto” since he doesn’t have the real thing.
[/quote]
In Clinton v. City of New York, the SCOTUS invalidated any sort of line-item veto. In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council: courts may give deference to executive interpretations of the law “if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue” and if the interpretation is reasonable with respect to the law.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
No, they don’t. Signing statements indicate the his interpretation of bills to other members of the executive branch, who will administer the law as the President understands it. What is the problem with that? It is no different from Bush simply telling his subordinates how to execute the law. Again, signing statements have no force of law. The Supreme Court does NOT use signing statements to decide the legality of action by the executive.
I don’t know how much more clear this could be: if the President or any other person violates the law as it has been passed by Congress, the Supreme Court (or appropriate court for the jurisdiction) will find against that person. Signing statements are NOT considered by the court. Period.
If a court - any court - were to base a decision on a signing statement, THEN you would have a very legitimate gripe that the President was usurping legislative power. Signing statements cannot act as line-item vetoes, either. The signing statements make the President look impudent… but a President being so does not break the system.[/quote]
This is correct. If the executive is challenged on an action, it will be the actual law the courts will look at. The signing statements will do squat. They are in no way law. Checks and balances, checks and balances.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council: courts may give deference to executive interpretations of the law “if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue” and if the interpretation is reasonable with respect to the law.[/quote]
That’s cold comfort when the president is a bit of an extremist who during his tenure has both been willing to extend presidential powers by trampling the law while at the same time is willing to place people of a certain ‘bent’ on the bench…
Given all the corruption in politics these days I really don’t trust the old boys network that he has in place around him and will be leaving behind himself.
However, if we are lucky, his failed policies, his ballooned debt, and the utter incompetence of many of his underlings will defang the lot of them.
[quote]vroom wrote:
That’s cold comfort when the president is a bit of an extremist who during his tenure has both been willing to extend presidential powers by trampling the law while at the same time is willing to place people of a certain ‘bent’ on the bench…
[/quote]
There is no court case. Look, this is pretty clear… the bill still requires warrants to open mail. If something else happens - that is, if mail is opened without a warrant - there will be a case. And the burden will be on the government to prove that it had a good reason to do what it did. Now, if there is no “ticking time bomb scenario,” and the Bush appointees all say “Gosh, makes sense to me,” then you have a legitimate gripe. But there are all sorts of things the President could do if he put his mind to it, that he doesn’t. Once he does, we have a problem. Until then… we don’t.
And as far as an example of a ticking time bomb scenario, I am astonished that no-one remembers the Anthrax scares of not so long ago. If automated detectors found traces of Anthrax or some other deadly agent on an envelope, you’re damn right that should be probable cause to open the envelope. How quickly we forget…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
And as far as an example of a ticking time bomb scenario, I am astonished that no-one remembers the Anthrax scares of not so long ago. If automated detectors found traces of Anthrax or some other deadly agent on an envelope, you’re damn right that should be probable cause to open the envelope. How quickly we forget…[/quote]
Heh, I actually did forget about that. And, yes, something like that shouldn’t require a warrant.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
nephorm wrote:
And as far as an example of a ticking time bomb scenario, I am astonished that no-one remembers the Anthrax scares of not so long ago. If automated detectors found traces of Anthrax or some other deadly agent on an envelope, you’re damn right that should be probable cause to open the envelope. How quickly we forget…
Heh, I actually did forget about that. And, yes, something like that shouldn’t require a warrant. [/quote]
Anthrax doesn’t tick.
In other words, you could simply isolate the suspect envelopes and take all the time you want to get your warrant.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
nephorm wrote:
And as far as an example of a ticking time bomb scenario, I am astonished that no-one remembers the Anthrax scares of not so long ago. If automated detectors found traces of Anthrax or some other deadly agent on an envelope, you’re damn right that should be probable cause to open the envelope. How quickly we forget…
Heh, I actually did forget about that. And, yes, something like that shouldn’t require a warrant.
Anthrax doesn’t tick.
In other words, you could simply isolate the suspect envelopes and take all the time you want to get your warrant.
[/quote]
Unless you believe the contents of the letter might hint at where other possible anthrax tainted envelopes might be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Unless you believe the contents of the letter might hint at where other possible anthrax tainted envelopes might be.[/quote]
Yeah, if you have the stupidest terrorist ever including his detailed plans in every mailing he does.
But even if that was the case, just open the Anthrax tainted letters and deal with the legalities later. Why remove checks and balances for “Once a century or once a decade” occurrences.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Unless you believe the contents of the letter might hint at where other possible anthrax tainted envelopes might be.
Yeah, if you have the stupidest terrorist ever including his detailed plans in every mailing he does.
[/quote]
Or just check the return address.
This doesn’t remove any checks and balances. The courts can stop it if they so choose.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Unless you believe the contents of the letter might hint at where other possible anthrax tainted envelopes might be.
Yeah, if you have the stupidest terrorist ever including his detailed plans in every mailing he does.
But even if that was the case, just open the Anthrax tainted letters and deal with the legalities later. Why remove checks and balances for “Once a century or once a decade” occurrences.
[/quote]
First, it doesn’t take detailed plans, all the time. There might be clues, forensics, or whatnot overlooked by the terrorist. Perhaps, he included a message in that envelope. Perhaps, without realizing it, that message includes a point of interest Intelligence had been tracking, thus immediately identifying themselves. Thereby, identifying their location, if they’ve been under any surveillance.
Second, you just advocated opening the letter and worrying about the legalities later. I think that’s the whole point.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Or just check the return address.
[/quote]
That didn’t work out so well with the previous Anthrax cases. Noone has been charged.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2) Second, you just advocated opening the letter and worrying about the legalities later. I think that’s the whole point. [/quote]
It IS the point, but not in the way you think.
The government can already open anyone’s mail at anytime, but might have to deal with legal fallout later on.
I’m fine with that.
The “signing statement” of the initial article tries to get rid of the legal fallout under some circumstances.
And since pretty much everyone agrees that those circumstances are extremely rare at best, it has me wondering why the US Govt. feels the need to address this particular issue. Unless it intends to make those “exigent circumstances” a lot less rare than we think.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Under these circumstances, how long does it really take to get a warrant issued? I’m not lawyer, but I bet you can proceed once you get assurance over the phone that a judge will be signing one ASAP. And that’s if you insist on going by the book.
I simply wonder why, once again, the govt. needs to “legislate” (sort of, since it’s done by the Executive branch through a signing statement) the need to allow itself to open mail without any judicial oversight.
Maybe nephorm’s right (he’s an ass that way) and it wouldn’t hold up in court; but if it’s that simple and evident I then wonder why A) the President even bothers with signing statements and B) why a lot of people are uneasy about Bush’s propensity for using those signing statements. I believe he’s made more of these than all previous presidents put together.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
2) Second, you just advocated opening the letter and worrying about the legalities later. I think that’s the whole point.
It IS the point, but not in the way you think.
The government can already open anyone’s mail at anytime, but might have to deal with legal fallout later on.
I’m fine with that.
The “signing statement” of the initial article tries to get rid of the legal fallout under some circumstances.
And since pretty much everyone agrees that those circumstances are extremely rare at best, it has me wondering why the US Govt. feels the need to address this particular issue. Unless it intends to make those “exigent circumstances” a lot less rare than we think.
[/quote]
Good points.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I believe he’s made more of these than all previous presidents put together.
[/quote]
Not really, but he’s come close. According to Wiki:
[i]The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced.
Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.
By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws.[/i]
So, yeah. I was just thinking, what exactly did the signing statement change? Haven’t there always been legal “exigent circumstances” for not obtaining warrants?
Here is the portion of the signing statement being debated.
“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.”
Now, hasn’t that always been the case? No opinions. Factually, what exactly changed?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
2) Second, you just advocated opening the letter and worrying about the legalities later. I think that’s the whole point.
It IS the point, but not in the way you think.
The government can already open anyone’s mail at anytime, but might have to deal with legal fallout later on.
[/quote]
Ok, than what is the issue here? The signing statement doesn’t, and can’t, absolve the Government of possible legal fallout. It still relies on exigent circumstances. They will still have to show what those circumstances are, if challenged later on. Where in the signing statement does this change?
First, a signing statement can’t get rid of the “legal fallout.” Second, exigent circumstances are already exceptions to obtaining warrants.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
First, a signing statement can’t get rid of the “legal fallout.” Second, exigent circumstances are already exceptions to obtaining warrants.[/quote]
Ok.
Then the initial article is just a puff piece about nothing because the Daily News needed some filler?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
First, a signing statement can’t get rid of the “legal fallout.” Second, exigent circumstances are already exceptions to obtaining warrants.
Ok.
Then the initial article is just a puff piece about nothing because the Daily News needed some filler?
[/quote]
Hopefully it’s as benign as needing some filler. I just find it odd they made an issue out of existing law. Existing law that not only Bush has clarified, but also Bill Clinton. Yep, that’s right, Bill Clinton. Where was the media when Bill Clinton issued this little executive order?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON