Bush's Postal Signing Statement
For almost two years, House and Senate leaders were unable to secure passage of a postal bill that deals with governance and competition and pricing. Pretty dry and mundane stuff. But in early December, they scrapped the competing bills and introduced new legislation, which was immediately passed by both houses. This legislation contained language affirming the private nature of domestic mail; this language was not in either original bill.
On 20 December, President Bush signed the bill, HR6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. But, in a companion signing statement, he explicitly overrode the section of the bill which dealt with who can open your mail.
The signed bill states:
No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.
The intent of Congress seems to be to ensure that domestic mail remains a private communication. But in the signing statement, President Bush said he would ignore the law and "conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
What is an "exigent circumstance"? It's a legal term, and it means, in lay terms, "emergency." Interestingly, Attorney General Gonzales noted in 2005 that only in a rare circumstance could the government could open mail in "an emergency."
The Cato Institute reports that "Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) specifically asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about mail openings at a 2005 hearing" and details the transcript of that exchange:
REP. FLAKE: ... But is that possible now, for the first time in history, without obtaining the approval of a court, to read a person’s mail and then prosecute the person on the basis of what is in that mail?
ATTY GEN. GONZALES: That sounds to me like it would be a search. And I think that you would need probable cause to do that. You would need a warrant to do that, and you’d have to go to a federal judge in those cases, except, I think, in very rare circumstances, if in the event of an emergency. But even then you’d have to go to a judge after the fact and explain what you’ve done. So I don’t think that what he has said is accurate.
I wonder: why would Bush explicitly include this in a signing statement, when the law already provides for warrantless searches of just about anything in "exigent circumstances." Plus, the White House has FISA. It's puzzling. The question is: is it also nefarious?
Powerline insists that the NYDN is making a mountain out of a molehill:
In fact, though, I think the paper has the story exactly backward. Under pre-existing law, a search warrant was normally required to open first class mail (but not other forms of mail). However, many exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant have been recognized. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all cases; it requires that all searches be "reasonable."
Well, that's not what the 4th Amendment says: it prohibits "unreasonable" searches -- and requires "probable cause" (not "reasonable" cause):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So with that error in logic, I'll move to The Moderate Voice. Marc Schulman calls the act "surprising and disturbing."
More importantly, unlike the White House’s explanation of the NSA’s secret warrantless surveillance program (the story broken by the New York Times in December 2005), its applicability isn’t explicitly limited to the interception of international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It is a step too far.
And the Carpet Bagger Report writes: "The closer one looks at the signing statement, the worse it looks."
And that's my gut reaction, too. I keep asking myself - why include something in a signing statment that's already "clear" in law, unless you decide to redefine "exigent circumstances." Especially with this Adminstration's record: wrapping all sorts of civil liberties curtailments in the flag of fighting terrorism.
Side-By-Side Comparison: The Law and the Signing Statement
Technorati Profile
Comments
I really don’t get the need for the signing statement, unless Bush thought the wording of the Act somehow negated the long-standing authority of postal officials to immediately open and inspect “ticking” mail, and get a warrant afterwards. Doing so is just common sense and no act of Congress or president is going to change it.
If the fear is that he’ll use the signing statement to initiate the willy-nilly opening of domestic letters under the war on terror mandate, forget it. There is no way the postal service can take the time to screen regular mail against any list of suspected terrorists — or political enemies. That would be far easier to do with email, which is of course, a whole other concern.
I remember when Nixon authorized the postal service to do this during the 70’s.I remember our mail in college being held up at the post office.My parents were livid and after tons of complaints from all over the country, it was stopped.
It seems to me that Mr Bush has gone to far…
In my opinion Mr. bush is stupid for doing that unless there is a bomb in it.
and it should still be against the law!!!! because what if some one order’s porn and dont want anyone knowing that they have it…. he has gone to far with his new laws and needs to stop the war in iraq
Robert, I don’t get it either — and it’s not just postal authorities — exigent circumstances applies to police, etc. it’s the ‘act first ask permission later’ clause …. but you do have to ask permission, so you’d better have probable cause.
And it’s not postal employees I’m particularly worried about. :-/
Like I said, there is a real concern if Bush et al plan to expand the definition of exigent circumstance. Slippery slope and all of that.
Judie, I didn’t know that about Nixon. Will check - thanks for the tip.
Jacob, Bob — there are lots of folks who agree with you than this signing statement goes too far.
To Whom It May Concern,
My mail rights have been violated for years by postal employees and law enforcement/and fireman members related to an x husband David W. Legate who’s cousin Billy Legate is married to Diane M. Legate
Fairview Heights, ILI myself was formerly known as Mrs. Diana M. Legate with an a not an e
but still all my divorce papers ended up on Diane’s desk and guess what I starve in Illinois trying to still receive justice at the US Supreme granting me relief from the divorce which left me with no money since Diane had my papers I didn’t get to court and all my job things go to her when she is not a freelance writer and insurance agent without a job but is a nurse that keeps accusing me of being a nut while she’s pimping my mail
Sincerely,
Ms. Diana M. Guenther-Legate
even after using my maiden name the mail is still being stolen
guentherlegate@yahoo.com
this guy is a total nut .it is time to impeach him!!!!!!!!!he is not a little hitler, he is a big hitler!!!!!!!
I keep forgetting: Is George W really God, or only king? Has he forgotten about the Magna Carta? Does he understand that the U. S. has a constitution that says we have certain rights as citizens that shall not be violated? Where is Congress? Why does he keep getting away with such things?
Helo I am From Ecuatorian please Can write in Spanish….
No entiendo nada de lo que me escriben
I remember when a friend of mine in college had his mail hung up because he received the english translation of the Peking Review (he was an Asian Studies major, not that that shoudl have made a difference). This move is more about the politics of fear: that things have become so rightening that now our mail must be searched. Bush makes Nixon positively benign.
So George Bush has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant.
He’s learning from Australia, where this sort of thing has gone on for years, certainly since 9/11 and probably much earlier.
A good thing or a bad thing? No comment!
I’ve little doubt that my phone is tapped by the Federal Police because of my friendship with a convicted drug-maker, and I would be very surprised if they bothered to get a warrant.
George Bush stop killing your life ..I like to meet you but no moaney to travel to you and no body helpe to meet you .but I can Invite you to vist me .In Hurghada Red Sea Egypt
just Relax Few dayes if you can
looking for word hearing from you
Hassan Eltayeb
+20123132156
the wording in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act…
“No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.”
… is the exact wording that has been in the U.S. Code for years. The latest Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act did not amend it, just moved it around.
Also, on July 25, 2005, President Bush issued a signing statement on the 2005 version of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which contained the exact same wording, and did not see fit to address it in his signing statement.
Odd. Maybe the “exigent circumstance” has grown in its level of uh… exigentcy?
WELCOME TO NEW REPUBLIC OF AMERICA OH? I MEAN OLD REPUBLIC OF RUSSIA. OH? GET THIS CLOWN OUT OF OFFICE. HE MUST BE ON DRUGS BIG TIME.
Bush is destroying the very foundation of this country, democracy
This country will fall apart one day
I think that Bush is just doing what he thinks is right. He is just trying to keep us safe. The governemnt can’t use anything that they find in our mail against us unless it states a plan to do someting harmful to anyone else. Americans shouldn’t be worried…unless they have something to hide.
Thanks, Robert. I’m going to add it to my comparison page.
Kathy
It’s Chimpeachment time!
Jorge - Puedo tratar de traducir si quiere…
Seems the Bush Bashers never cease in their relentless quest to skew, pervert, bend, distort, and overall demogogue any thing that comes from the Bush White House. Terrorism is real!!! Terrorist want to kill you and me regardless of your position within the political spectrum! We have not been attacked at home since 911. Do you think that is an accident? What ever it takes to stop another terrorist attack on our soil so be it. Obviously people on the left do not relize the threat that still exists today and will for quite some time. Islamo-Fascists have long wanted to kill Americans simply because of our way of life. Long before President Bush was elected they, (the terrorists) have wanted to destroy our very existance. So leftist and kooks out there who think that if we could just talk to the terrorists they would understand and let us live in harmony