redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
He lets Cheney do the rest.
wahahahahahaha you know its true!
wahahahahahaha you know its true!
Bush Claims Power To Open Mail Without A Warrant
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BorderGirl
Acrobat
CTU2fan said:
Or just maybe it was that way before it even left the building???
Let's open the envelopes and reseal them before mailing
What a way to keep the paranoids united???
No one ever opens and checks our mail, just the government.
It's a slippery slope out there people. Ya just never know......
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
BorderGirl said:
The scanning for explosives and physical materials - yes. But targeting "suspicious" people and snooping for intelligence - absolutely not. Get a valid warrant and obtain these documents as part of a legal search and seizure.
u2fan628
The Fly
'' FREEDUMB''
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
It all seems a bit "fuzzy" to me 
Gee must be just a coincidence, all those signing statements he's issued.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472777/
The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress,” said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn’t that?”
She said the group is planning to file request for information on how this exception will be used and also asking whether it has already been used to open mail.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., also criticized Bush’s action.
“Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November,” Schumer said.
The ACLU’s Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb.
“His signing statement uses language that’s broader than that exception,” she said.
Bush uses the phrase “exigent circumstances”: “The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly putting this in writing if this isn’t a change in policy,” Beeson said.
In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, the law allows postal officials to open letters that can’t be delivered as addressed — but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.
Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.
Bush’s statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
“That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement,” ABA president Michael Greco has said. The practice, he added, “is harming the separation of powers.”
Gee must be just a coincidence, all those signing statements he's issued.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472777/
The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress,” said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn’t that?”
She said the group is planning to file request for information on how this exception will be used and also asking whether it has already been used to open mail.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., also criticized Bush’s action.
“Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November,” Schumer said.
The ACLU’s Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb.
“His signing statement uses language that’s broader than that exception,” she said.
Bush uses the phrase “exigent circumstances”: “The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly putting this in writing if this isn’t a change in policy,” Beeson said.
In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, the law allows postal officials to open letters that can’t be delivered as addressed — but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.
Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.
Bush’s statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
“That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement,” ABA president Michael Greco has said. The practice, he added, “is harming the separation of powers.”
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Presidential vetos;
FDR -- 635
Truman -- 250
Eisenhower -- 181
Kennedy -- 21
Johnson -- 30
Nixon -- 43
Ford -- 66
Carter -- 31
Reagan -- 78
Bush I -- 44
Clinton -- 37
Bush II -- 1
Maybe the Huffington Post is exaggerating a wee bit when it says Bush is "arrogating" power for himself or "jamming" things down Congress's throat.
FDR -- 635
Truman -- 250
Eisenhower -- 181
Kennedy -- 21
Johnson -- 30
Nixon -- 43
Ford -- 66
Carter -- 31
Reagan -- 78
Bush I -- 44
Clinton -- 37
Bush II -- 1
Maybe the Huffington Post is exaggerating a wee bit when it says Bush is "arrogating" power for himself or "jamming" things down Congress's throat.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A signing statement and a veto are two different things.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Given recent trends by Clinton and Bush II it might be suggested that the signing statement has become the de facto veto.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
maybe...
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
How many signing statements did Clinton make?
How many had to do with privacy rights?
I Googled it
Clinton- 140 over 8 years
Bush Sr - 232 in 4 years
It's not the number, it's the manner in which it is used and the reasons for it. I think it's just more of GWB using terrorism to justify intrusion into privacy.
How many had to do with privacy rights?
I Googled it
Clinton- 140 over 8 years
Bush Sr - 232 in 4 years
It's not the number, it's the manner in which it is used and the reasons for it. I think it's just more of GWB using terrorism to justify intrusion into privacy.
Last edited:
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Conservatives have argued for a presidential line item veto for 25 years which might cut down on these signing statements.
Anyway, you now have Pelosi & Co to rein in Mr. Bush.
Anyway, you now have Pelosi & Co to rein in Mr. Bush.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
Maybe true conservatives, but those hardly exist anymore. True conservatives are rolling in their graves at what the neo-cons have done to their name.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well, I'd like to think we still exist, but yes I agree with you.
In the same way that the liberalism Of JFK (lower taxes, the use of the military to spread liberty, the essentiality of God to American life and morality), has been jettisoned by the left. In fact, today, they're more identified as conservative ideas aren't they.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
Well not exactly. The beauty of liberalism, is it's always been defined in a way that it can evolve.
God and morality being exclusive to liberalism is a lie you've been sold by your neo-con buddies. Something I always thought you were a little bit too smart to fall for.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Evolve! What does it say about your principles and dogma if you admit they are in constant flux?
You lost me here, is exclusive the word you wanted?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
If you kept your ancestors views and principles about slavery, women's rights, or race where would you be? It's the reason our constitution has the ability to be ammended, our forefathers weren't arrogant enough to think they had it right the first time.INDY500 said:
INDY500 said:
I meant that liberalism and God have to be contradicting; it's a lie.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Clearly some on the Left are attempting to drive God out of the public square. Which is not the liberalism of JFK.
Righting wrongs is commendable. Replacing good ideas with better ones in a move towards an ideal (using your example; "that all men are created equal") I'd call progress more than evolution.
But I fear modern liberalism doesn't so much evolve as it does float. Floats to wherever the moral current of the day takes it because it rejects absolutes and overarching truths in favor of pragmatism and utopianism.
Anyway, I'll get in trouble for derailing the thread if we continue so I'll give you the last post.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
It would be a great discussion for another thread...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
Yes, it's these obvious oversights by the right that crack me up...
Similar threads
