A quick hint, Bricker, my words don’t need a translation, least of all from someone like you. If you have problems understanding my words, ask, and I’ll clarify. The words he used, as I said, may be a change in the law, if he continues to hold to his views of the Constitution that he’s articulated in his defense of the NSA wiretap.
If only it were that simple. You’re right – if Congress explicitly eliminated the requirement, the Prez has no way to resurrect it.
The problem arises if Congress speaks less than explicitly and a crazy judge finds that Congress intended, by penumbra, emanation, hint, whisper, nudge, and nod, to remove it.
Because legislation is shaped by public opinion. And Bush’s signing statements give him the opening salvo in the debate; he can shape the discussion in advance of any actual controversy.
Even here you shy away from using the plain text as though it were a poisonous snake.
You don’t object to his actual words. You object to what you think he might do beyond the plain words he’s used.
See, I’m one of those unwashed ignorant people. And what I see is Bricker arguing If you squint your eyes and turn turn around a quarter way and look at this signing statement in this here dim light, there is nothing illegal about the president opening your mail if he feels like it.
Since I’m not a lawyer who argued-- sorta kinda-- in front of the Supreme Court, who am I to disagree?
And this is why I asked, point blank, if this signing statement asserts powers that the President didn’t have before.
Bricker seems to assume the answer is no, and everyone else seems to assume that the answer is yes.
So which is it? Really? Because we aren’t getting anywhere until this basic question is answered.
I certainly won’t presume to disagree with your self-assessment. But I am fascinated by your second sentence, since it seems to me that the obvious explanation is the one I am defending, and the “lawyerly twists” arise from the other side.
Here’s my simple, easy review:
[ul]
[li]the law already allows for emergency situations to disregard a warrant requirement.[/li][li]Bush’s signing statement says, “I interpret this to have an exception for emergency situations.”[/li][li]Therefore, Bush’s statement doesn’t expand the law at all.[/li][/ul]
Any other concerns are more technical, more supposition, more “squinting of eyes.”
Right?
In that event, if a “crazy judge” finds that Congress intended to remove it, the President would have no more or less ability to ignore the opinion of the judge than he would in the absence of the signing statement. Is the crazy judge on the municipal bench in Assboink, Idaho? Or is he the majority opinion writing Supreme Court justice?
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about here. By appending over 750 signing statements, the President has done nothing to sway public opinion; he has only alienated Congress. There is nothing in the text of any of the signing statements – certainly not in this one – indicating they are intended to be the opening salvo in some public debate. As a mechanism for fostering public debate, signing statements would seem to be a singularly poor choice. I don’t know what you mean by “shape the discussion in advance of any actual controversy,” other than what I have already alluded to with disapproval – an unsubtle attempt to expand his authority by repeatedly claiming authority he doesn’t in fact have.
Again – he either has the power he asserts or he doesn’t. A declaration to that effect doesn’t change it. It doesn’t “shape the discussion” (whatever that means) of whether or not he has it, because it’s not a matter open to discussion, it’s subject only to judicial interpretation. Which is why IMO the signing statements are so pernicious; they are an usurpation of not just legislative perogative but of judicial perogative as well. And even if you argue that that is not what they are in fact, that is certainly what they appear to be. I am not much less in favor of apparent violations of separation of powers than I am of actual violations.
Well, not quite. Hamlet says that the statement itself doesn’t assert new powers – he says that the statement, coming from a guy with Bush’s track record, suggests that Bush WILL assert new powers. He’s saying that the statement signals an intent to assert new powers, even though the statement itself doesn’t claim new powers. Look at the character and history of the guy making the statement, says Hamlet, to understand what the statement really means.
I say, no, the statement means what it says.
I agree. They do appear to be, without actually being, usurptions of both legislative and judicial arenas.
I don’t agree it’s wrong.
I don’t say the answer is “yes.” But if the answer is “no” and the President is not claiming additional powers, the the signing statements are completely superfluous – pointless, redundant, and useless. As well as inflammatory and alarming to many. So I disagree that “we aren’t getting anywhere until this basic question is answered.” Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, the President’s use of signing statements as he uses them, with the frequency he uses them, for the purpose he uses them for, is IMO completely inappropriate and he should knock it off at once.
But, as Jodi pointed out, there’s simply no need for him to do this. It’s superfluous. Nobody could reasonably interpret the plain text of the legislation as supervening existing Fourth Amendment law. Not even one of your wacky activist judges. (At least, none of the ones that I know.)
I have a question; this is based on a judge’s take on an actual case? So it would be the judge who’s used the term “exigent circumstances”? If not, what’s the law that uses those words, and is the term defined in that law? And if it is, again what law is the judge basing his take on? (If this makes no sense legal-wise, feel free to ignore it 
).
Yes, the term “exigent circumstances” is used in a zillion or so Fourth Amendment cases, and is a well-recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
I guess I don’t know what you mean by “wrong.” It’s certainly not illegal – yet. It has, as you concede, the appearance of impropriety – something that I strongly disfavor and frankly believe you do as well. By your own explanation, they serve no concrete purpose other than “shaping debate,” which IMO is a damn poor reason to apparently violate one of the founding principles and chief mainstays of our entire system of government.
I fear I need to say it again… Don’t put words in my mouth. If you are having a tough time understanding, go ahead and ask, and I’ll slow down for you.
Then why, pray tell, did he include the words that I object to: “the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.” If, as you assert, that Bush is only saying he’s reserving the right to operate under exigent circumstances, those words are simply superfluous. The reason, I posit, is because he is, in fact, granting himself the power to do as he wishes when it’s for “foreign intelligence collection.” And I posit that based on his track record in this area.
Well, shoot, when you ignore the precise statement I pointed out, you’re right. But that’s not all he said.
And no one can reasonably interpret the plain text of the signing statement as extending existing Fourth Amendment law.
I’m not going to ask him what the hell that means! You ask him!
Except that, too, is entirely consistent with existing law. The statement that gives you belly rumblins SPECIFICALLY says: "“the need for physical searches **specifically authorized by law]/b] for foreign intelligence collection.” You agree, I assume, that this statement is a completely accurate statement of what was and is legally permissible for the Executive Branch to do, yes? Your objection is grounded entirely in supposition. You’re saying, in essence, “I don’t trust him, and therefore I choose to believe he will interpret specifically authorized by law as not authorized by any law at all.”
There is NOTHING in the plain text of the statement that changes existing law. Nothing at all.
Yes-- I do have a technical concern. Do you think the President of the United States can legally read my, or any other citizen’s, mail without a warrent? Really, that’s the whole point, isn’t it?