Power Line News

The cover of today’s New York Daily News features a grinning President Bush and the headline: “I’ve got m

» View the article

You know what’s amazing is to head over to Kos and peek at the pertinent “discussion.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/122722/2145

The signing statement really does seem like a non-issue, something that will melt away to nothing quite quickly. And yet over at Kos all you get is garment-rending grief, and rage at how no one will step forward and stop this megalomaniac in the White House.  “This is the last straw” - again.  There’s literally no one, that I’ve seen, even mildly suggesting the other side. And of course if someone tries… look out.

They’re like a herd of monkeys in a pen, reacting with shrieks and panic every time someone tosses in a banana.

Well, the

“one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. ... One (out of the one or more ed.) such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service.”

could be satisfied by Express Mail. As in only some part of Express Mail is so protected. This could be as generous as Flat Rate, or as little as some new category of small windowed envelope (now 5"x10") and under 1 oz.
It seems like the Post Office has the authority to determine themselves what delivery service products outside of at least part of Express Mail.
They don’t have to include First Class mail as a protected class. I don’t see but that they could charge extra for the same service level as a new protected class.

I first thought this was much ado about nothing, but NBC Nightly News picked up on it, interviewing the usual Civil Libertarian harpie, but then also added a sound byte from Maine RINO Senator Susan Collins who couldn’t have looked more ignorant when she said that she didn’t know there was anything in the Postal Bill that gave the President such sweeping powers. “We’ll have to look into it.”
Could these Senators be more clueless about the stuff they vote into law?

"Section 1010(e) of the Act included this paragraph; there was nothing like it in the previous version of the statute”

You’re 100% wrong. The paragraph you cited ("The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail ... No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law") doesn’t just have something “like it in the previous version of the statute.” That exact paragraph is easily found in “the previous version of the statute,” in Section 3623.

HR6407 did not invent this language, as you incorrectly claim. HR6407 simply moved this language from Section 3623 of Title 39 to Section 404 of Title 39.

“there was no such provision in the prior version of Section 404 of the statute”

That’s true, because this provision was in a different section (3623) of the statute.

“the new language in Section 404 does not accurately state the law as it existed prior to the statute’s enactment”

Wrong. The language in Section 404 does indeed “accurately state the law as it existed prior to the statute’s enactment.” The language in Section 404 is not “new,” except to folks who don’t realize that Title 39, Section 3623 already contained that precise language.

“So what President Bush is saying is that he understands that law enforcement authorities have exactly the same power to open first class mail that the had prior to the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, at least with respect to exigent circumstances and FISA-authorized searches.”

Wrong. What President Bush is saying, in his usual style, is that even though the law calls for a warrant, just like it always did, he’s letting us know he doesn’t need no stinking warrant.

Not only about the stuff they vote into law, but about the Constitution.  Collins apparently had no idea that law enforcement agencies already can open mail under “exigent circumstances.”

PaulFromMpls - 04 January 2007 06:57 PM

You know what’s amazing is to head over to Kos and peek at the pertinent “discussion.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/122722/2145

The signing statement really does seem like a non-issue, something that will melt away to nothing quite quickly. And yet over at Kos all you get is garment-rending grief, and rage at how no one will step forward and stop this megalomaniac in the White House.  “This is the last straw” - again.  There’s literally no one, that I’ve seen, even mildly suggesting the other side. And of course if someone tries… look out.

They’re like a herd of monkeys in a pen, reacting with shrieks and panic every time someone tosses in a banana.

I wouldn’t go to that website if you paid me.  I had enough with the whackos at the New York Times website.  Hysteria and hatred.

Having read through this 3 times, I find no substantial change, and no expansion of powers to surveil American citizens. This merely shuffles sections and paragraphs around. The Postal Service has always had the authority to open mail at their discretion. Nothing has changed.

Thanks, Sandbox, that was helpful.  See the update I did to my post. 

If Schumer and Waxman are correct (and theirs is a plausible reading of the statute), then, as I say in my update, your mail is subject to a higher standard of protection against warrantless search than your underwear.  It is very unclear why this should be true.  Legally, the issue appears to be an open question.  At least one court has suggested, without holding, that there may be an “exigent circumstances” exception to the general prohibition on opening first class mail without a warrant.  This is consistent with the Bush administration’s signing statement.  In any event, the signing statement, which merely says that the law relating to opening of mail should be construed consistent with the general constitutional law under the Fourth Amendment “to the maximum extent permissible,” should hardly be a cause for hysteria.

SR - 04 January 2007 10:01 PM

Could these Senators be more clueless about the stuff they vote into law?

Umm, No
Senators are chosen by various methods.
None of those seem to be for understanding the mass of verbage that comes out of the Congress.
It not only isn’t a priority, it isn’t even on the list.

1)Able to generate enough political interest to get some supporters
Check (see former hopeful Tammy Duckworth)

2)Able to acquire enough campaign contributions
Check

3) Able to keep foot out of mouth long enough to get through election
Check (see former Senator Allen about what happens when this part fails)

4) Able to get enough of correct TV coverage to satisfy above
Check

5) Ability to make enough of your constituents willing to vote for you even if they believe that the institution you are running for is seriously flawed, needs wholesale changes, and you aren’t really any different.
Check (no matter how bad Ted Kennedy seems, he still meets all of the above)

There are helping factors such as (ghost)writing or sponsoring laws for special interest groups that help the above. And how little you might actually give those groups while seeming to give them more.
Special interest groups can be as small as a save the snail darter group, or as large as a save the continental US from a sack by citizens of the Republic of Mexico special interest group.

Friendly Media help. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader was almost enough to singlehandedly keep Tom Daschle in the Senate. Almost.
Minneapolis Star Tribune was able to get Keith Ellison elected.

To the degree that any actions or capabilities are helpful, it is in achieving those 5 items.
Ability to know what laws, or recall the particular of what laws, or even understand what the result of the laws passed with a particular Congresscritter’s vote?
It isn’t on the list.
When it happens, it is just gravy.

jhinderaker - 05 January 2007 12:44 PM

Thanks, Sandbox, that was helpful.  See the update I did to my post. 

If Schumer and Waxman are correct (and theirs is a plausible reading of the statute), then, as I say in my update, your mail is subject to a higher standard of protection against warrantless search than your underwear.  It is very unclear why this should be true.  Legally, the issue appears to be an open question.  At least one court has suggested, without holding, that there may be an “exigent circumstances” exception to the general prohibition on opening first class mail without a warrant.  This is consistent with the Bush administration’s signing statement.  In any event, the signing statement, which merely says that the law relating to opening of mail should be construed consistent with the general constitutional law under the Fourth Amendment “to the maximum extent permissible,” should hardly be a cause for hysteria.

There is also precedent for Bush’s opening mail without a warrant.  In WWII, the OSS, in conjunction with British intelligence, read US mail in transit through either Bermuda or the Bahamas.  Unfortunately, I still have about ten boxes of books to unpack after moving last fall, but the spying operation is detailed in the book, “A Man Called Intrepid.” FDR also authorized eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls and reading telegrams sent within the country.  So, if the god of the Democrats could do it for reasons of national security in time of war, why can’t Bush?

"A poster at the Forum points out that there was indeed a provision identical to the new Section 404(c) in the postal statute, at Section 3623. 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.”

How is that the issue shifts to the way the media has covered this?  You previously wrote, in reference to Rep. Waxman, “Note the contradiction in Waxman’s statement: he says that the new law “continues” to prohibit warrantless examination of mail, but in fact, there was no such provision in the prior version of Section 404 of the statute, and the new language in Section 404 does not accurately state the law as it existed prior to the statute’s enactment.”

It turns out, Waxman was right, and you were wrong.  Why is that so hard to admit?  We’ll be watching for a similar admission now that Jamil Hussein has been found: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528028.

And when that admission of error is made, can you reference the moonbat tendency not to “rebut simple, benign explanations; they just ignore them in favor of gothic, fevered conspiracy theories. Their logic system favors, not the simplest explanation, but the darkest one”? http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016341.php

jogoldbe, yes, you made a point about the provision. I do believe however that the larger point - that W is not claiming new powers, but instead (in his view) making sure to reiterate the powers he and other presidents already have had - is unaffected by this side issue -

Why did he feel the need to do this? I don’ know enough about it to be sure, but it probably has something to do with a perceived need in the WH to constantly reiterate this sort of thing, to ward off future troubles and in the face of a general clamor that he’s constantly overreaching Constitution-wise. he wants to protect what he considers his truf and his responsibility.

There are articles and analyses today claiming that the courts may well not agree with thr idea that there is ever a proper time to open mail without a warrant, even in the case of a dire terror threat. Three points on that: I’d be surprised if that were the outcome; I’d disagree with it; and the large majority of the people would disagree as well.

Note: I base that last conclusion on the notion that there would “never” be such a case. Most Americans would think that was silly, I’d hope. I believe the president is largely motivated by the desire to constantly make clear that he believes there would be such a situation, in a variety of contexts (not just mail that is), and he will act that way should the situation arise.  In that light, it may well be he’s being advised to make his position clear before the fact, for legal protection purposes.

To tell you thr truth, it seems to me a truly sneaky president would do just the opposite: plan on doing it and not tell anyone.

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.

PaulFromMpls - 04 January 2007 06:57 PM

They’re like a herd of monkeys in a pen, reacting with shrieks and panic every time someone tosses in a banana.

Now that’s funny!

It really puts an entertaining image into your head.

Paul from mpls, I grew up in Brainerd and lived several years in the Minneapolis area as an adult before I moved out of state. How’s life there?

Andrea in NY - 04 January 2007 10:16 PM

I wouldn’t go to that website if you paid me.  I had enough with the whackos at the New York Times website.  Hysteria and hatred.

Andrea,

It doesn’t hurt to go over once in a while just to remind yourself how unbelievably crazy these people are.