jhinderaker - 05 January 2007 12:44 PM
Thanks, Sandbox
No one by that name has posted in this thread.
Then again, maybe this is your way of signaling that we should be addressing each other with entertaining nicknames.
The 2006 revisions merely moved the provision to a new location--a fact that, curiously, is not noted in any of the news coverage I’ve seen.
The fact that the new law said nothing new (when it indicated that the government needs a search warrant to open first-class mail) is clear to anyone who read the original Daily News piece. That article (and many other articles, including your own) quotes Waxman saying “the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people’s mail without a warrant” (emphasis added). Those words are unambiguous. The fact that you managed to grossly misunderstand them is no one’s fault but your own.
Given “exigent circumstances,” which is a term of art, law enforcement authorities can search your house, your car, or your person without a warrant.
True, which means that no signing statement was required, unless Bush is saying something above and beyond “exigent circumstances.” And indeed, he is: “the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.” Those words would not be there if Bush was only talking about “exigent circumstances.” And if Bush was only talking about “exigent circumstances,” there would have been no need for a signing statement at all, because it’s widely acknowledged that “exigent circumstances” (e.g., a clear, immediate threat of bodily harm) justify warrantless searches.
Bush mentioning “exigent circumstances,” and you making a big fuss about “exigent circumstances,” is a red herring. The heart of Bush’s signing statement is not his comment about “exigent circumstances.” The heart of Bush’s signing statement is his reference to “the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection,” even in the absence of “exigent circumstances.” Bush’s signing statement declares that he can warrantlessly open your mail simply by declaring a “foreign intelligence collection” purpose. (If that’s not what the signing statement means, it would be simple enough for Snow to say so, but he hasn’t.)
This is aside from the “exigent circumstances” exception. There’s nothing new about that exception, just like there’s nothing new about the law protecting the privacy of our mail (until Bush came along and declared, as he has done before, that he doesn’t need any stinking warrants when he declares that his purpose is “foreign intelligence collection").
the signing statement ... merely says that the law relating to opening of mail should be construed consistent with the general constitutional law under the Fourth Amendment
If the signing statement only mentioned “exigent circumstances,” you’d be right. But if the signing statement only mentioned “exigent circumstances,” there would be no need for a signing statement, because the “exigent circumstances” exception is already well-known. Trouble is, the signing statement also declared an exception regarding warrantless “foreign intelligence collection.” If this was already obviously “consistent with the general constitutional law under the Fourth Amendment,” then there would be no need for a signing statement.
If declaring a new loophole for “foreign intelligence collection” wasn’t the point of the signing statement, then what was the point of the signing statement? USPS VP Tom Day said “the president is not exerting any new authority.” Then why was there a need for a signing statement?
If the Postal Service Act means what Chuck Schumer and Henry Waxman says it does, then your mail is subject to a higher standard of protection against warrantless search than your underwear.
Like many things you say, this is nonsense, based on nothing. You’ve already demonstrated your inability to comprehend Waxman’s simple statement. I don’t know whether it’s poor comprehension or something else on your part that has led you to make comments about mail law that are as distorted and misleading as your prior comments about FISA and MCA.