It looks as though the testing I described earlier, meant to determine whether or not small government conservatives and self described libertarians actually believe what they claim they believe, is branching out in bold new directions. Warentless wiretaps and detention without charge may not have set off their finely tuned big government radars, but how will they feel about the NSA pawing over their large print copies of Jugs?
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush’s move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
“Despite the President’s statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people’s mail without a warrant,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
“The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
“The danger is they’re reading Americans’ mail,” she said
What is this spine thing I keep hearing about.
one of these days bush will overreach and attach a signing statement saying he has the right to kill and eat the christian baby of his choosing. man, won’t it be embarrassing when that one leaks out.
maybe the boston globe will have a story about it, noting that what the president wrote was technically “contrary to law.” then everyone will go their merry way.
A signing statement is not a bill or a law or anything. Only if you agree that the President is the law, can you acept a singing statement. If you beleive that, there is no consitution.
What meaning can a signing statement have
if it’s signed by an illiterate?
This is where the Libertarians hit the skids and reveal that they are nothing less than the neo-cons they say they abhor.
To think that they will do anything other than leave skid marks in their tighty whities is to believe that Libertarians have a real philosophy.
Better leave my Publisher’s Clearing House shit alone!