President Bush Defines Irony and Restricts Privacy Simul
President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.
Read the full story.
Remember those warrantless wiretaps President Bush instituted? He's doing the same thing to the US Postal Service. But that's not what this essay is about. The same analysis from those articles is applicable here. This essay is about the office of the presidency itself. Bush used a "signing statement" to declare this new power for the federal government.
Signing statements are a relatively new phenomenon; although the concept has been around since James Monroe's presidency, they have only been commonly used since Reagan's presidency. The initial justification for a signing statement was that the President could state his interpretation of a bill upon its passage, clarifying legal terms, etc. From Reagan to Clinton, signing statements were used to indicate that the president (and by extension, the rest of the executive branch) would not enforce a particular part of a bill. However, in 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that line-item vetoes were unconstitutional.
To my knowledge, the current administration's use of signing statements has no historical precedent, as he is using them to greatly expand the powers of his office (by declaring himself - and once again, the entire executive branch - immune to laws, oversight, etc.). I will not appeal to the founding fathers on this issue, because Presidential power is already well-beyond what they intended. I will warn, however, that consolidating too much power in even the most saintly of individuals sets a dangerous precedent. It's even more dangerous to allow that individual to award themselves extra powers, with or without oversight.
According to the Wikipedia article linked above, the American Bar Association created a task force that condemned the use of signing statements. A new bill was introduced by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) to invalidate signing statements and challenge their constitutional authority. This bill needs support
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.
Read the full story.
Remember those warrantless wiretaps President Bush instituted? He's doing the same thing to the US Postal Service. But that's not what this essay is about. The same analysis from those articles is applicable here. This essay is about the office of the presidency itself. Bush used a "signing statement" to declare this new power for the federal government.
Signing statements are a relatively new phenomenon; although the concept has been around since James Monroe's presidency, they have only been commonly used since Reagan's presidency. The initial justification for a signing statement was that the President could state his interpretation of a bill upon its passage, clarifying legal terms, etc. From Reagan to Clinton, signing statements were used to indicate that the president (and by extension, the rest of the executive branch) would not enforce a particular part of a bill. However, in 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that line-item vetoes were unconstitutional.
To my knowledge, the current administration's use of signing statements has no historical precedent, as he is using them to greatly expand the powers of his office (by declaring himself - and once again, the entire executive branch - immune to laws, oversight, etc.). I will not appeal to the founding fathers on this issue, because Presidential power is already well-beyond what they intended. I will warn, however, that consolidating too much power in even the most saintly of individuals sets a dangerous precedent. It's even more dangerous to allow that individual to award themselves extra powers, with or without oversight.
According to the Wikipedia article linked above, the American Bar Association created a task force that condemned the use of signing statements. A new bill was introduced by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) to invalidate signing statements and challenge their constitutional authority. This bill needs support