Only as long as we're at war with Eurasia
Jan. 5th, 2007 12:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenVia ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cavalaxis, article:
President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York 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...
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.
"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial `ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.
While I'm politicking, this was highly entertaining: Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Tom Price (R-GA) are promoting a 'Minority Bill Of Rights' that would prevent the Democrat majority in Congress from riding roughshod over the Republican minority. To quote from the proposal: "This Bill of Rights is identical* - in both letter and spirit - to a 2004 proposal made by then-Minority Leader Pelosi..."
So if it's such a good idea, why didn't it happen two years ago? No prizes for guessing...
(It pains me greatly to say that yes, something of this sort should be passed, for the exact same reasons that it should've been passed in 2004. Indeed, it probably would've been a good idea during the long Democrat majority before that. But the temptation for payback is obvious.)
*Although it's not clear that it is identical. One of the key sections of Pelosi's version says "Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute". I haven't seen the full text of the Republican proposal, but the excerpt here says "...process that grants all members the right to offer amendments or substitutes." The latter sounds suspiciously like an invitation to filibuster.
cavalaxis, article:President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York 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...
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.
"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial `ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.
While I'm politicking, this was highly entertaining: Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Tom Price (R-GA) are promoting a 'Minority Bill Of Rights' that would prevent the Democrat majority in Congress from riding roughshod over the Republican minority. To quote from the proposal: "This Bill of Rights is identical* - in both letter and spirit - to a 2004 proposal made by then-Minority Leader Pelosi..."
So if it's such a good idea, why didn't it happen two years ago? No prizes for guessing...
(It pains me greatly to say that yes, something of this sort should be passed, for the exact same reasons that it should've been passed in 2004. Indeed, it probably would've been a good idea during the long Democrat majority before that. But the temptation for payback is obvious.)
*Although it's not clear that it is identical. One of the key sections of Pelosi's version says "Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute". I haven't seen the full text of the Republican proposal, but the excerpt here says "...process that grants all members the right to offer amendments or substitutes." The latter sounds suspiciously like an invitation to filibuster.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:17 am (UTC)...and maybe those are pigs flying past my window.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 03:36 pm (UTC)In our Constitution, Congress passes laws - not the President. Signing statements have no legally authority.
-m