BCT Editorial – 1/11/07

This page was last updated on January 11, 2007.

Bush signing statement could mean further erosion of basic rights; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 11, 2007.

I haven’t researched the topic of the editorial, so my critique is purely to point out problems with the editorial’s “logic.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The Bush administration continues to push the envelope when it comes to stripping Americans of basic civil liberties.

“The president and his men have pretty much said that they have the constitutional power to eavesdrop on telephone conversations and monitor e-mail that originate in the United States without having to get a warrant first.”

[RWC] Gee, I wonder why the editorial didn’t just come out and say it was talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that monitors international communications to/from suspected terrorists.

“Now, they may be taking the same approach to reading Americans’ mail.”

[RWC] Yep, President Bush is going to open and read your Christmas cards. <g>

“The Associated Press reports that a signing statement Bush attached to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act may have opened the way for the federal government to open mail without a warrant.

“Actually, signing statements can be added to the list of questionable constitutional interpretations by the Bush White House. Basically, Bush uses signing statements to say he will interpret that law as he sees fit and that he will ignore or not enforce provisions of that law with which he disagrees. Call it a non-veto veto.”

[RWC] I wonder why outlets like the Times want us to believe President Bush invented the signing statement. I’ve addressed this issue before.

Anyway, here’s the statement.

“The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”

Exactly what is wrong with this statement?

“The contention that the federal government has the right to open mail without a warrant is part of a troubling effort by the Bush administration to erode basic civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

[RWC] As you will read below, nothing in the Fourth Amendment makes this illegal.

“The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on this point: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

[RWC] I have two points.

First, note the word “unreasonable.” I’m surprised it wasn’t “inadvertently” omitted from the quote.

Second, nothing in the Fourth Amendment says warrants must be issued for searches, though the editorial obviously wants us to believe otherwise. If warrants were required, there couldn’t be things like sobriety checkpoints, airplane baggage searches, customs searches, et cetera.

“What makes the administration’s disdain for legal niceties even more troubling is that it’s going to get what it wants anyway the vast majority of the time. All it has to do is ask the courts and it usually will get what it wants - but it doesn’t want to ask.

“Why?”

[RWC] The Times can get away with editorials like this because it knows almost none of us will read the signing statement. When you read the statement, this editorial looks idiotic and is clearly completely a partisan attack.