Loose Letters Sink ... Freedom?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They'll get tossed. The constitution spells out how the President can veto a bill but it doesn't mention signing statements where the President can accept some parts of the bill but ignore others. Bush has way over reached on this and eventually the courts will toss it out. It will take time though.

Exactly how are the courts going to tell him to stop again?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Loose Letters Sink ... Freedom?

Originally posted by BlackCat


I seriously doubt that you can remember such a time -

Actually, just 1977, as far as domestic mail goes, but they had to get a warrant after the fact within 72 hours. This isn't about Customs.

This was a result of the CIA's abuse of the postal service during the 50s, 60s and 70s.

[Kuciwalker]

This is about a piece of mail from the Philippines, che.

[chequita guevara]

The law and the signing statement aren't, though.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Exactly how are the courts going to tell him to stop again?

All it takes is someone who's had their mail opened without a search warrant, or had their conversation tapped without a warrant, or had their e-mail searched without a warrant to sue claiming it violates their 4th amendment rights.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They'll get tossed. The constitution spells out how the President can veto a bill but it doesn't mention signing statements where the President can accept some parts of the bill but ignore others. Bush has way over reached on this and eventually the courts will toss it out. It will take time though.

In actuality the exigent circumstances exception is well precedented in the ability to warrantlessly search premises and persons. I see little difference in the application to mail and parcels particularly when it comes to diffusing mail bombs or the like where time is of the essence.


But I figured I would post the article in post 4 (instead of Drake ) simply to reinforce delusions of paranoia. Seems it worked.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I think it has allways been like this, just so happens, if you attach the words "Homeland Security" into it, it becomes an afront to our rights.

God I hope they attach "Homeland Security" to speeding tickets, I'm getting sick of those damn things...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
All it takes is someone who's had their mail opened without a search warrant, or had their conversation tapped without a warrant, or had their e-mail searched without a warrant to sue claiming it violates their 4th amendment rights.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to the general practice of signing statements.