[QUOTE=elucidator]
Wouldn’t expect such, any more than I would expect a burglar to leave a reciept.
[/QUOTE]
My objection is to the screaming and yelling at the fact of the signing statement.
Your response basically says, “Yeah, the statement itself has nothing wrong in it; it’s just that the guy who made the statement is a louse, so the statement is lousy by implication.”
Yes?
[QUOTE=wring]
I won’t shout but “point to the single unequivocal answer Gonzales gave to that specific answer”
IOW, counselor, when asked specifically ‘will you intrepret this to mean the Pres will warrentlessly open mail from/to US citizens" Mr. Gonzales specifically failed to answer that simple yes or no question. How else should the citizens intrepret that except to understand Gonzales’ intent to issue exactly the same sort of weaselly response you keep on making - “I didn’t say I wouldn’t” gives him plausible deniability , if the answer was “No, I wouldn’t” why on earth would he have not simply said so?
[/QUOTE]
He was never asked that question.
He was asked: “Under your interpretation of this, can you go in and do mail searches? Can you go into e-mails? Can you open mail? Can you do black-bag jobs?”
The answer to that is YES, if exigent circumstances exist, or with an FISA warrant, or an ordinary warrant, or if the mail is international.
He was NEVER asked if they could do warrantless searches, was he?
“Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens? That you can answer yes or no.”
Not really. YES, under exigent circumstances, or with a FISA warrant, or an ordinary warrant. But the problem with answering YES is then Leahy screams to the press, “Oh, noes!! My goodness me! The President can open Grannies’ Christmas cards!”
They were trying to get Gonzales to spit out a yes or no answer to a complex question that doesn’t have a yes or no answer – or, actually, one that does, but is correctly answered ‘yes’ but leaves itself open to much twisting.
No. With all due awe, Bricker, we are simple souls, for us, an evasion is simply that…an evasion. We do not feel bound to respect it as proof of benign intent. Rather the opposite.
As to “yelling and screaming”…you mean like posting in oversize letters in red? That sort of irrational emotionalism? Not my style.
if, as you say, we’re all just talking about the already existing FISA regs and so on, than, ** why is the signing statement necessary**?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…The answer to that is YES, if exigent circumstances exist, or with an FISA warrant, or an ordinary warrant, or if the mail is international…
[/QUOTE]
He couldn’t say “No, not without exigent circumstances, or with a warrant, or if the mail is international…”? Why not?
[QUOTE=wring]
if, as you say, we’re all just talking about the already existing FISA regs and so on, than, ** why is the signing statement necessary**?
[/QUOTE]
Answered on page one, it is a gesture to open public debate and to frame the issue. Apparently, you are expected to buy that.
"Dear Illustrious Mr./Ms.** Wring**:
I am Bongo Momboombo, son of Nigerian Finances Mystery, and I am having for you a very goodness offer of your financial security…"
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Without a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither of those are permissible. The Attorney General must be able to certify that “there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.”
That’s very clear. A letter FROM an American citizen mailed inside the country could not be opened without a warrant OR exigent circumstances.
And that’s what Bush’s signing statement says.
[/QUOTE]
No, that may be part of what it says, but not all of it. it says he’s going to interpret the law in such a manner as is consistent with “the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.” And, as I’ve already pointed out, we know his, and Gonzo’s position on what is authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. Mail just simply joins electronic communication as another form of communication that the President feels he can conduct a warrantless search of. Otherwise, why his sudden change of heart about FISA?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
My objection is to the screaming and yelling at the fact of the signing statement.
[/quote]
That is, as everyone (probably including you as well, but there’s no guarantee) a complete misrepresentation of the OP. The “screaming and yelling” is at Bush’s record, which this signing statement merely continues, of ignoring the law and doing whatever the hell he wants. One might expect someone who values the law to agree. Ome might, however, expect someone who places equal or higher value on fealty to an political institution and to its current head to disagree. As you have done.
But then, that position comes from a guy who can honestly state that the signing of a law *begins * public debate over it, rather than culminates it! That, my dear fellow, shows an equally-complete misunderstanding of how the legislative process works. :rolleyes:
The part where he mentioned “exigent circumstances” permitting the law not to apply. Surely you aren’t about to tell us that anyone *else * has the power to override whatever interpretation of “exigent” he happens to find convenient?
You’re better than this. I’m still sure of it.
Bricker is technically correct, as is the paragraph in the signing statement.
But that paragraph, and the rest of that extraordinarily long statement is pretty clear in its intent: intimidation.
The idea being, at every conceivable turn, to give no quarter where there might be even a remote question of Executive authority. We’ve come a long way from the clarity of 1842, to the detriment of the Republic:
My apologies for not monitoring my own thread, but I wound up so busy yesterday that I had only a few minutes to check on it.
My understanding of “exigent circumstance” has doubtless been formed from watching too many episodes of Law & Order, where the excuse (real or manufactured) is offered in response to an actual, on-site situation (“If we don’t break down this door and enter, someone might get hurt.”). It’s hard to imagine this sort of situation with regard to a sealed #10 envelope. They would have to have some reason to believe that this specific letter contained life-or-death information; and if they have such information, they would have sufficient cause to get a warrant (there have to be a few Brickers on the bench!).
Thanks to Hamlet for providing a link to the signing statement. I’d like to throw out another paragraph therefrom:
Emphasis added.
Now, I have not hunted up the law cited to see what it says (a failure that may bite me in the butt; so be it) but Bush (actually, the lawyers who wrote the statement) seems to be saying the law “purports” to say what it says! “The purported deadline”??? If the law has a deadline, then it’s a deadline! Remember that deadline the Supremes bowed to in December, 2000, Mr. Bush?
My own WAG as to why this administration is using signing statemes: They figure that if Congress doesn’t immediately pass a bill pointedly contradicting something in the statement, then their interpretation becomes de facto law.
Glad I stuck with it for 3 pages for it to get truly laughable.
In Post 112 Bricker maintains
By Post 122 he apparently acknowledges that after having answered Spectre’s question, he was asked a second question (apparently previously described as a pesky interruption), but darn it - that question was unfair and defied his honest attempts at open disclosure and participation.
Yes I know foolish consistency, hobgoblins, and whatnot. But this argumentation style strikes me as throwing shit against the wall, seeing if any of it will stick. If not, well, you can always find more shit to fling.
Bricker, you do our profession proud! 
A courageous admission, Dinsdale! I would remind you that many recovering attorneys have gone on to admirable careers as organic goat farmers and tofu entrepenuers! One or two juicy personal injury suits, pay off your student loans, and you’re free! Free at last, free at last…
Bound to keep Spiny Norman at bay!
[QUOTE=rjung]
Yes, Republicans can be very shortsighted.
[/QUOTE]
They’re not shortsighted, they just don’t care and think they can get away with it.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Translation: the statement doesn’t actually say anything that would change existing law, but I don’t like or trust Bush, so I’m going to act like it does.
[/QUOTE]
More like Bush has never given me a reason to trust him and every reason not to.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
And if some crazy judge inclined to find congress intended to remove it, how exactly do you think a presidential signing statement weighs into the calculus?
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
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?
[/QUOTE]
How do you “kinda sorta” argue in front of SCOTUS? What kind of lawyer is Bricker?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The searches “specifically authorized by law” for foreign intelligence collection may not be constitutional. Or Bush’s interpretation of laws specifically authorizing physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes may not be constitutional. I’m having trouble getting really bothered by all this talk until we see evidence of actual abuse because short of proof of actual abuse, there are too many other things to be bothered about.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
They’re not shortsighted, they just don’t care and think they can get away with it.
[/QUOTE]
Those options aren’t exclusive.
I have a question here. As I understand it, a President’s signing statements simply give the President an opportunity to append his thoughts about some provision of the bill he’s signing or to allow him to state how he will interpret the provisions of that bill in practice. They do not have any actual legal standing at all. Do they? I mean, if, say, President Hillary Clinton were to append a signing statement to a bill reaffirming gun rights saying that she disagreed with it, that terrorism and crime made it too dangerous a freedom and that she intended to have the FBI begin confiscating everyone’s guns (Not that I believe that a) Hillary will ever be President or b) she would make a signing statement like that if she was, I’m just trying to move away from using Bush in any examples because I don’t think most posters-from either side-here can even pretend to be objective about Bush), wouldn’t that mean exactly jack shit? If she proceeded to issue such an order to the FBI, wouldn’t it be immediately challenged in court, who would presumably tell Madam President that she couldn’t do that as per the second amendment and make the whole thing null and void? Isn’t this all much ado about nothing until the President actually , you know, does something? At which point the courts will determine if it was legal for him to do it or not and settle the issue? Isn’t that how things work?
I could try to look it up, but don’t care to. I am no expert, and this amounts to little more than my WAG. But I assume one situation where signing statements would likely come into play is when administrative agencies enact regulations necessary to implement legislation. One relevant factor in determining what regs are required/permitted is Congressional intent as demonstrated in hearing testimony and elsewhere. I suspect at least one intended purpose of signing statements is to influence that process. I do not know if this is a type of the “public debate” to which Bricker refers.