Once again, Bush has used a holiday recess to sneak in a signing statement that further erodes Americans’ right to privacy.
(emphasis mine)


Justice Brandeis must be rolling in his grave.

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?

2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?

As long as Bush is able to play the terror card, he'll be able to get away with constitutional infractions of this time. I saw on NBC news tonight where Senator Collins, (R-Maine) who sponsored the polstal bill, said the bill gave Buish no such power as he claimed in the signing statement.

2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?

In my opinion, It is time for the American people, through phone calls and letters, to stand up and tell Bush to go straight to hell.

As Keith Olbermann recently put it:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453938/

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?

Absolutlely not! A signing statement is not a power granted to the President in the Constitution, so it remains a power of the states or the people. That's the largest context. His act breaks the very law he signed. That's the smallest context. Both, and all in between, are impeachment grounds to me!

2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?

Same as above! It's impeachment time! And if the House won't impeach, then what? Well...

Under common law, we citizens still have the right of citizens arrest, though there is an ongoing effort to do away with common law. Can a citizen do a citizens arrest on an office holder? I's sure like to think so!

I'm glad to see someone around actually knows a little about how to look at the Constitution in the proper perspective. The impeachment comment is bologna given historical precedent. Liberals like Daffy would give the federal government all kinds of powers not spelled out in the Constitution (rights to abortion, educating the public, controlling healthcare, Social Security), but then complain about other rights being denied that are not spelled out in the Constitution. Makes you wonder if some of these people ever actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or any other founding document. The ignorance of the basics of our Constitutional republic that runs through the American population is astounding.



Who knows why citizens have a right to privacy?? Anyone? Well the Constitution doesn't say that you have any privacy. So what is it then? The answer is, because the Constitution doesn't say that the Government can invade your privacy. But that leaves it to the States. So next time you come in here talking about Bush-this and Bush-that, at least understand what you are talking about.

Why is it only liberals that would walk all over the constitution. I think the right of the political spectrum has more then its fair share of the same with simply a different shade. So I guess if the government is not to have anything to do with abortion then republicans are basically being "evil" by trying to ban it, heck what do they have to do with stem cells? How about giving tax money to religious groups? I don’t see why they would have any power or anything really going from that perspective yet of course when its in favor of something you would probably like its all ok right?

People use the government for all sorts of things it probably should have never been used for, heck on what grounds really are drugs illegal for that matter?

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?
Don't shoot me, but I think Bush has some say in this. In some ways it is justifiable. After the whole 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq, don't you want our country to be safe? And so what if he's opening our mail...if you have nothing to hide anyway, what's the big deal? And let me remind you that above, it did say that it was only in emergency situations. It's not like Bush is sitting at his desk and says "I'm bored, let's violate someone's privacy today, let's open their mail!" It's not like that.

2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?
I think he does. And I think impeachment is a bit harsh as well. What do you want him to do? Sit around and do nothing to help our country? He has to do something, he's the president.



And let me add one more comment. Seriously, you try being the president.; it's not an easy job. I'm not saying Bush is this perfect saint, and yes, he seriously has made some mistakes. But seriously, but I thinking opening some mail is the least of our worries. Think about it...when someone is president, they can never make everyone happy. You do it this way, people get mad. You do it that way, people get mad. It's a Lose-Lose situation. No one's ever happy. Bush opens our mail and "violates our right to privacy", people get angry with him. But if he doesn't open our mail, and does nothing, people will get mad at him for doing nothing.

Anyway, just a thought.

This is a common tactic of conservatives and Republicans, to slam anyone who disagrees with the President up against the wall to question whether or not they want their country to be kept safe. Why is that? Who exactly declared President Bush "the decider" but he himself? I'm sorry, but keeping the country safe is a EDIT response from people who can't argue the merits of the constitutionality of a President's actions. I agree that President Bush is probably not going to just have everyone's mail opened willy nilly for no apparent reason. That's absurd. The problem lies in the signing statements and President Bush's unconstitutional (I would say illegal) use of signing statements to circumvent the law he signed. If he wants to veto it, fine; Congress can then get a 2/3 majority and override the veto. But President Bush's actions are devised entirely to push the office of the executive branch above the other two branches. They are equal branches, whether the President likes to admit it or not.


What do you expect? People got mad Clinton lied about having an affair (like oh so many husbands do). He was impeached over it. If opening mail is somehow going to stop a disaster, he can get a warrant and have judicial oversight as the founding fathers designed it to be. The events of 9/11 could have been known had the FBI searched the 20th hijacker's laptop, but they failed to do so. They could have, but didn't. The August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing warned of an impending attack via commercial airliners. The signs were all there and we didn't have Bush overstepping his boundaries. This is not to blame him at all--it is to say that we don't need all these extra protections when our intelligence agencies just needed to do their jobs.

We are all aware that President Bush's job is not easy. I wouldn't want it. That said, Bush is in the office and he needs to be acting more like the leader of America and not the CEO of his own private corporation (by the way, his record of running corporations is deplorable). Please, stop with the empty rhetoric labeling liberals and Democrats as unpatriotic and unsafe. It leads nowhere and merely reduces any impact your argument may have had. Using hyperbole and outlandish, unwarranted claims does nothing to move the debate along.


Edited to remove profanity filter bypass attempt - Jaime

I must agree, the "to-keep-the-country-safe" card is played much by the Republican party. (And btw, I am not "slamming people against the wall" who disagree with me) I'm just throwing it out there, it's only an opinion.

You were saying that Bush's actions were entirely devised on trying to use the power of the executive branch to override the other two branches, I'm not sure I fully agree with that. I don't think any president would be sitting there in the White House trying to come up with a way to weaken the other political branches.

But if you want to talk government here, then fine. I don't have to play the "to-keep-our-country-safe" card to get my point across.
A point you touched on earlier: while Bush is the president, he doesn't have supreme power-- it's a democracy, not a dictatorship; which is what our Founding Fathers had decided on many years ago. So if the 2 bicameral bodies really didn't like the bill saying that it's okay to open peoples' mail under serious circumstances, or if they didn't agree with it, then they could vote on it and kill the bill. They wouldn't even need the President.

As most all of you know, bicameralism was created for one of the purposes being checks and balances. So that both bodies could check on one another make sure that they are doing what they should be doing. It's been that way for years, British Parliament even did it that way. And Bush couldn't change that, even he wanted too. Surely, he knows that. And surely he knows that a president, or the executive branch alone, doesn't have absolute power over a country. And that being the case, I don't think that his actions are devised entirely to push the office of the executive branch above the other two branches, I think it was to help the country.

While everything he's done (including the opening of mail) hasn't always been great, and yes, he's made a lot of mistakes, I think the the opening of mail was coming from his own efforts to help the country. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's justified, (because it isn't), but I think he's trying (not necessarily doing a good job of it), but he's trying to do the right thing. Then again that's just an opinion.




For the record, I never accused Liberals or Democrats of being unpatriotic or unsafe, I was just talking about the American public in general. Plus there's nothing wrong with me disagreeing with you. It's a debate, we're allowed to have opinions. I didn't mean to make anyone upset.

But moving on, you said "This is not to blame him at all--it is to say that we don't need all these extra protections when our intelligence agencies just needed to do their jobs."
I disagree in some respects. I think that even if our agencies were doing there jobs, and they did find hijackers, then I still think that America would be in need of some assistance. Think about it, if there are hijackers that want to bomb Americans, then don't you think we'd need at least some extra protection to prevent anything from happening? If there are hijackers that want to kill us, then I think that America should take some action. Ya know where I'm coming from?

The whole point is that that's not what the bill said. Bush completely subverts the system of checks and balances by signing bills into law, but then issuing "signing statements" that basically say he doesn't have to follow the laws if he doesn't feel like it.

Also, this is not even dealing with the "right to privacy." Requiring a warrant to search through a person's mail is a pretty straightforward interpretation of the 4th amendment. We're not talking about penumbras or the right to abortion or anything. The 4th amendment states, "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 [. . .]" I really don't see how searching through a person's mail without a warrant is legal under any circumstances.



Of course we should take action. But I happen to believe that we should take action that still respects the law and doesn't directly contradict the Constitution.

That sounds good, and I'm heartened that you have such faith, but what about things like this?



You don't find that at all troubling? I know I do.

Bush's presidency ought to strike fear in the hearts of anyone who cherishes liberty, anyone who believes in a limited government, anyone who values democracy.

There is NO "right to privacy"!!!

This is a fallacy and your entire premise if false.

Do you have a RIGHT to molest a child in private?

Do you have a RIGHT to plot terrorist acts in private?

Do you have a RIGHT to create WMD's for mass killings in private?

Do you have a RIGHT to take drugs in private?

Privacy is a state, it's a set of circumstances, it is NOT a right. It's an invention by those who have used thise manufactured "right" to further their social agenda.

Therefore, your charges against our president are MOOT. He hasn't violated a right that does not exist!

Sadly Lordhelmet, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They have consistently upheld that there is a right to Privacy in literally dozens of decisions on the topic. Starting in 1890 with the law review article by Warren and Brandeis, and supported by every single Supreme court decision taken since that date, the Right to Privacy is now as standard and universally accepted by the courts as any right enumerated in the Constitution. You may not be aware of this, but thats how the law of the US works, precident and past law, especially in such a universally accplaimed and one-sided case as this.



These examples are as irrelevant as they are silly. None of them have anything to do with the right to privacy, as in each case laws are being broken. Its like claiming the right to keep and bear arms 'doesn't exist' because you don't have the right to shoot innocent people in the face with your gun. None of your spurious examples have anything to do with the issue at hand.




What an odd thing to say. For decades the champion of the right to privacy has been the Republican party, fighting against the power of big government to intrude into the lives of regular Americans. Only with the advent of the neo-cons did the right to privacy suddenly stop being a right-wing issue. Claiming its an 'invention' of the left defies both history and fact, I have no idea why you would say such a thing.

If you searched the United States for a decade you would NEVER find a constitutional lawyer who would agree that there is no such thing as a right to Privacy. That is such an absurd statement that it is akin to saying there is no such thing as the moon. There is no such right specifically laid out in the constitution, true, but precident law is a critical foundation of the legal system, and it has established over 120 years the unquestioned right to Privacy of American citizens. Furthermore, the architects of this right, and its main proponents, were all conservatives for generations. Why you would make up the assertion that it is a recent 'invention' by the left is utterly beyond me...

Amendment IV of th US Constitution:

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.

Your response is hyperbolic and misses the point. Of course you don't have the "right" to do most of those things, in private or in public. Whether on purpose or through a misunderstanding, you're misrepresenting the argument.

The right to privacy is inherent, since the Constitution specifically defines how our persons, houses, papers, and effects can be searched. If we otherwise had no right to be secure in those things, then they wouldn't have needed that whole amendment, would they?

But if you have no problem with a president deciding how he or she wants to interpret the Constitution, that's an opinion you're certainly entitled to. Just don't complain when a president you don't like does it. Because power like that, once taken, will be used. I don't care if the president is Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter - I don't want them having the attitude that by signing little memos and sticking them in the National Register, they can ignore laws enacted by Congress - or even worse, ignore the Constitution.

It's all so very simple--never give to government more power than you want your worst enemy to wield. This means you will have to do many things without govt assistance, assistance that in our pursuit of comfort and uniformity otherwise would be welcome. A true US conservative would suffer rather than expediently ask the govt to do something it simply is not empowered to do, no matter how reasonable or practical it may seem.

Liberals are always the main culprits here because their social engineering/redistribution of wealth agenda simply doesn't fit within our Const, or my admonition above. A true Conservative understands how fragile limited govt is--it is not a normal state. Dictatorship or autocracy has been much more prevalent in history.

Bush is not a Conservative, anyway. A Neocon is a liberal in wolf's clothing. They believe in the same concept of govt held by liberals, they just have different goals.

We haven't had a real Conservative in the White House in eons. The last one may have been Herbert Hoover, who was lambasted for not "Doing Something" about the Great Depression. FDR "Did Something" but trampled all over the Const in the process.

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?

Could someone give me an example of any Al-Qaeda terrorist ever being convicted through what they sent through the USPS? To me it it appears absurd as the number of innocent civilians who will be searched(i.e.-protestors, peace organzations, etc.) will be greater than bonafide terrorists. Terrorists whose presence in America is slim to none and a matter purely of speculation.

2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?

This second question is quite interesting. I suppose he believes that he has the authority to do this as he was given general permission to defeat terrorism by Congress after 911. The legislative branch needs to step up and forbid him from doing it or do nothing and allow him to do it. Either way, a position clearly needs to be taken. I believe the president is mixing up who makes the laws and who enforces them.

Signing statements are utterly without force of law and can safely be ignored, or in Bush's case laughed at.

Ironically, they will be helpful in any challenge to Bush's unconstitutional enforcement of the laws they apply to, since Bush has foolishly put on the record his nakedl misinterpretation of the legislation.

I hope Bush and other cheap labor conservative presidents (will there ever be another) keep producing signing statements that can be used against them in any challenges to the maladministration of Congress's llegislation.

we had king who tried to ammend the laws as defined by parliament - it ended in his deposition, an invasion by a foreign power and a glorious revolution.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

Thomas Jefferson, quotes about Executive Orders:
Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.

Our rights are being chipped away to the point where I seriously doubt that the 'sheeple' will be able to do anything about it.

Our populace is much more interested in bread and circuses and reality TV instead of living a full and free life.

I invite you to visit the following websites to see that we are not alone in our beliefs that people have rights, and should exercise them..

http://www.clairewolfe.com/index.html

http://www.libertyforall.net/

http://www.javelinpress.com/bostons_gun_bible.html

MOLON LABE !!!

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
We have a constitutional right against search and seizure which Bush has just thrown aside, emergency situation or not when do we make it stop when it reaches martial law? Bush instituting himself as King? Or as a dictator? Those are the powers he is giving himself. No man, however would be so bold as to declare it openly that that is his intentions. The thief who knocks on our door and makes his intentions known isn't a very good thief. The same is true of politicians. They will desguise their own agendas as the best interest of the people.

1. Do you find this latest violation of our constitutional rights justifiable? Why or why not?
To the best of my knowledge the “mail” is not cover but there is this as pointed out - Amendment IV of th US Constitution:

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

Now the question is does the opening of mail violate this Amendment. I may just do that and needs to be looked at by the high court.
2. Does the President, charged with enforcing our laws, have the right to (continually) suspend or violate them with a signing statement?

In war time he can do some of this but at the end of the day the courts need to be the check for this type of activity. Certainly if we find out that the AQ folks are using the “mail” regularly to communicate we should come up with ways to deny them this.