I think the average Joe has a basic understanding of the issue. He may not grok the intricacies of Fourth Amendment law and the exigent circumstances exception, but he understands, “In an emergency, we can open mail.”
Wow, a quick answer. Ok, does the President outline what he would define as “emergency conditions” in his signing statement? Does his interpretation of that line up with the common interpretations of “exigent circumstances”?
I am answering posts in order.
And why shouldn’t it be the situation Mr. Bush has in mind? He’s a big dummy who probably forms his ideas of the world by watching ‘24,’ right? That’s exactly the sort of issue Jack Bauer routinely faces.
Seriously, I think Mr. Bush correctly stated that there is an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. He is right. Why is it more complicated than that?
No, he basically uses the phrase “exigent circumstances,” exactly as the case law does. He gives only one example: “…such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials…” which is consistent with exigent circumstance doctrine.
His full statement is :
Sorry - missed one question here. I think it’s the PRINCIPAL reason he’s doing it. He’s also trying to broaden presidential powers, in much the same way that Roosevelt did - by asserting them and keeping public opinion with him.
That wasn’t my question. How much do you believe the average joe knows about Bush’s signing statements? You buttonhole the next person walking down the street and say, “Boy, that sure was interesting what Bush wrote in that recent signing statement, wasn’t it?” You think the passerby is going to have any clue what you’re talking about? Hell, even if they know about it, they’re more likely to have heard the overly simplistic spin from the other side and say, “Yes, that awful man wants to be able to read our mail!” Nice job shaping public opinion favorably to his cause right there. Surely you recognize that something like this is far more apt to generate negative publicity, if it generates publicity at all among people who aren’t con law or polisci geeks like you and me.
Because without ascribing inappropriate motive, for the life of me I don’t see why he’d want to “correctly state” his belief about the state of the law every time he signs a piece of legislation. He doesn’t think the law he’s signing delineates its preservation of the exigent circumstances exception in sufficiently clear terms? Veto the motherfucker!
Roosevelt had Congress at his back, which may or may not be more disturbing. Bush does not. That’s a principal difference.
Probably very little.
But so what? I believe the average Joe knows next to nothing about the economic effects of raising the minimum wage; I would not argue that we should not raise the minimum wage because of that ignorance. I wouldn’t even argue that we shouldn’t try to get favorable spin for our particular view about minimum wage (whatever it may be) because of that ignorance.
That’s not as practical a move. We don’t have a line-item veto; he has to zap a huge bill simply to make a point about a section that isn’t clear. Better to simply clarify the correct interpretation of the section.
That may be a good predictor of ultimate success or failure, sure. But does it make Roosevelt a saint and Bush a demon?
Bricker it appears you missed my last post.
Sorry.
Physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes are addressed in 50 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq.
Ok, thanks.
That section says:
Certainly there is a substantial likelihood that searching domestic mail will involve the information, material, or property of a United States person.
Did I say it did? It’s a matter of personal preference: whether one has more of a problem with (1) arrogation of legislative and judicial authority by the executive or expansion of federal power at the expense of the states.
sigh Yes, but if (as you assert) the point of the signing statements is to garner favorable public opinion, and if the public doesn’t know diddly-squat about the contents (or even the existence) of your signing statements, then what in the world are you trying to do? This isn’t at all like raising the minimum wage…what effects are felt by the public as a result of Bush’s signing statement? I submit none, unless and until Bush attempts to use the statement as a basis for overreaching existing law.
A “clarif[ication]” that nobody could possibly see the need for. Bush isn’t a judge. Is he? There’s no instant case or controversy. Is there?
The question I am answering is yours:
If the mail is directed to a foreign citizen in the United States, mailed by a foreign person within the United States, then the FISA would apply. It would not permit the opening of mail that was the property of US citizens. Your question did not limit itself to US citizens.
Well, the OP says that Bush violates his oath of office by these actions.
If the OP had said, “I don’t agree with this approach,” then I’d not be here. I object to the idea that this is a cut-and-dried issue on which no reasonable person may disagree.
The blogosphere is certainly taking notice and debating the issue. That is a about as public and in-depth debate as any issue gets.
That’s absolutely ludicrous. I want you to think about that statement and then decide whether it’s really what you mean.
The Plame investigation got (and gets) a hell of a lot of exposure in the blogosphere, too. Many things get exposure in the blogosphere without even scratching the surface of the public consciousness.
Unless what you meant by (paraphrased) “Bush makes these signing statements to shape public opinion” was “Bush makes these signing statements to get the partisan liberal bloggers all riled up.” I think you’ll agree those are two very different things.
What issue gets public attention, then? Any issue you care to name is similarly a mystery to the vast majority of the voting public. Nonetheless, there is value in shaping the small sliver of “public” opinion that actually pays attention. What gets distilled into the public mind will hopefully be a sound-bite subset of what starts in the blogosphere and the pundits’ Sunday morning talk shows.
(1) None of the language that is being used is mine. I am using the wording that President Bush used.
(2) The law I quoted does not limit itself to US citizens, nor does it authorize searches of foreign persons mail.
(3) Do you believe that Bush’s statement, “the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection” refers to the very limited situations authorized by 50 U.S.C. § 1822? If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case?
You’re silly and I’m not paying any more attention to you in this thread. For right now. Because I have to go to bed. 
Sleep on that line of reasoning above—especially as regards the signing statements—and see if you still adhere to it tomorrow. You’ve gone from claiming Bush is attempting to shape public opinion to saying that he wants to shape “the small sliver of ‘public’ [and I note the quotation marks] opinion that actually pays attention.” But of course, the more that sliver of the public pays attention, the less they’ll need it told to them by the President that that legislation he’s signing doesn’t override bedrock, decades-old jurisprudence. Thus, you’re taking increasingly distant steps from Bush’s words—rather than any actions he might take in furtherance of his words—having any discernible effect on anyone.