WP, Froomkin: Opening our mail: Is Bush's abuse of signing statements a Constitutional crisis?

[DeepModem Mom]

Bush Claims Right to Open Mail
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, January 4, 2007

The New York Daily News today reports on a signing statement President Bush quietly issued two weeks ago, in which he asserts his right to open mail without a warrant.

Signing statements have historically been used by presidents mostly to explain how they intend to enforce the laws passed by Congress; Bush has used them to quietly assert his right to ignore those laws.

James Gordon Meek writes about the latest: "President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York Daily News has learned....

***

It shouldn't be a surprise that although Meek was almost two weeks late with this story -- which was a matter of public record -- he still got a scoop.

Bush's signing statements have been widely ignored by the traditional media, with the significant exception of Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage, who is on book leave right now.

And sadly, most of the questions about signing statements that I raised in a Nieman Watchdog essay last June still remain unaddressed. Foremost among them: Are these signing statements just a bunch of ideological bluster from overenthusiastic White House lawyers -- or are they actually emboldening administration officials to flout the laws passed by Congress? If the latter, Bush's unprecedented use of these statements constitutes a genuine Constitutional crisis....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[salin]

1. earlier today I went back and found a journal item I wrote last

Spring on this very topic. Fromkin gets at the heart - are they acting on the statements or not - if so... a constitutional confrontation sometime in the next year - between congress and the WH is inevitable. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salin/19

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Excellent, salin! Thanks for posting the link. nt

[salin]

3. thanks for posting the Froomkin piece.

I am glad that more and more coverage of various signing statements are getting written about - in various places. That means that more folks will get to have an inkling of just how much outside of the Constitution this administration has been acting. Only way to prevent such an era from recurring is for the public to fully know about and understand it.

[Phredicles]

4. Add this to the list of reasons why impeachment needs to be "on the table"

Should be obvious, but I'm concerned that it's not.

[Zodiak]

6. Bush has squandered whatever goodwill he expressed

after the election. He has acted like a petulant child for two months, now. This signing statement is just another egregrious act to heap upon the conduct n the war, the stonewalling, the mocking of Webb, etc. This man ios determined to not play ball at all.

That is why impeachment needs to be back on the table and proclaimed loudly. I am afraid that Bush wil respond to no less and all of this waitning is really hurting the Constitution and millions of people, including Americans.

[itsmesgd]

5. Let the investigations......begin

just add this one to the pile of "Shit To Investigate"

[seafan]

7. Here is the scoop from the Boston Globe on these *signing statements*.

....now that he quietly signed another one recently, as part of a postal reform bill, proclaiming he can now open our private mail without a warrant.


Bush challenges hundreds of laws

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff
April 30, 2006



Bush’s contention that he can ignore provisions of the Patriot Act, whose renewal he ushered last month, has drawn scrutiny. (Jim Young/ Reuters)

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

snip

Another tsunami is coming, Mr. Bush.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Thanks for posting, seafan! nt