NationStates Jolt Archive

And the liberal media is, of course, all over this one (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html) (by which I mean it was only the NY Daily News and only two weeks after it happened).
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
What's it going to take for Americans to rise up en masse against this signing statement bullshit? President Hillary? What? Tell me, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.

Anthrax in the mail should do it. Let's see them open that letter.

I really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, hope bad things happen to that man.

What are "emergency conditions", exactly?

how about a constitutional challenge? it cant possibly be legal for a president to add anything to a bill that has been passed by the legislature. thats why we have seperation of powers isnt it?

dont be thinking that the next president wont do the same thing if s/he can get away with it. its a power thing not a bush thing.

What are "emergency conditions", exactly?

Whatever he says they are, and no, I am not overstating the case.

how about a constitutional challenge? it cant possibly be legal for a president to add anything to a bill that has been passed by the legislature. thats why we have seperation of powers isnt it?

dont be thinking that the next president wont do the same thing if s/he can get away with it. its a power thing not a bush thing.
Depends on the makeup of the court--you know who the first judge to push the idea of the unitary executive and the signing statement was? Sam Alito, currently residing on the SCOTUS.

And the liberal media is, of course, all over this one (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html) (by which I mean it was only the NY Daily News and only two weeks after it happened).

What's it going to take for Americans to rise up en masse against this signing statement bullshit? President Hillary? What? Tell me, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.

I hope he realizes that saying he has the right to do something doen't automatically give him that right. I'd like to see him try it. *nod*

how about a constitutional challenge? it cant possibly be legal for a president to add anything to a bill that has been passed by the legislature. thats why we have seperation of powers isnt it?

dont be thinking that the next president wont do the same thing if s/he can get away with it. its a power thing not a bush thing.

Now that Bush has done it, I'm sure that the next Democratic President will do the same.

That's why they aren't challenging it in court. Because they like it just as much as Bush does.

Depends on the makeup of the court--you know who the first judge to push the idea of the unitary executive and the signing statement was? Sam Alito, currently residing on the SCOTUS.

why have a legislature at all? have the congress pass a bill authorizing a bridge in alaska and the president can use 10,000 pages of signing statements to do the rest.

I hope he realizes that saying he has the right to do something doen't automatically give him that right. I'd like to see him try it. *nod*

With any luck, he'll decide he has the right to fly next time he's atop a very tall building.

i find myself somewhat surprised that he hadn't already claimed that power. just doing a bit of mop-up work on the tyranny?

What are "emergency conditions", exactly?
The breeze is blowing from the north.

Now that Bush has done it, I'm sure that the next Democratic President will do the same.

That's why they aren't challenging it in court. Because they like it just as much as Bush does.

Oh, I have a funny feeling some of the loudest voices against this will be republicans. Arlen Specter will not be pleased. *nod*

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

as much as im NOT a libertarian, i expect the usps to follow the law which is that mail is private.

Now that Bush has done it, I'm sure that the next Democratic President will do the same.

That's why they aren't challenging it in court. Because they like it just as much as Bush does.
If they're not challenging them, it's likely because they don't have standing, but at the very least, Henry Waxman is making noises about challenging Bush on this, and perhaps Congress will pass legislation requiring at least some sort of judicial review on signing statements. Wonder how fast Bush would veto that?

Oh, I have a funny feeling some of the loudest voices against this will be republicans. Arlen Specter will not be pleased. *nod*

Only because he's Mr. Magic Bullet.

If they're not challenging them, it's likely because they don't have standing, but at the very least, Henry Waxman is making noises about challenging Bush on this, and perhaps Congress will pass legislation requiring at least some sort of judicial review on signing statements. Wonder how fast Bush would veto that?

What do you mean "don't have standing"?

They're the legislators who wrote the legislation. How much more standing do you need?

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

Just turn in your libertarian creds right now, because that statement invalidated them all.

Just turn in your libertarian creds right now, because that statement invalidated them all.

How so?

It only means that Cluich doesn't use USPS. Maybe he's a FedEx kind of guy...

What do you mean "don't have standing"?

They're the legislators who wrote the legislation. How much more standing do you need?

The Courts have ruled on more than one occasion that Congress can only sue the executive in very limited circumstances. Google is your friend. :rolleyes:

The Courts have ruled on more than one occasion that Congress can only sue the executive in very limited circumstances. Google is your friend. :rolleyes:

This sounds like it would qualify as a new circumstance.

If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

Exactly. Moreover, if you havn't done anything wrong, it really isn't a problem. Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy. And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

This sounds like it would qualify as a new circumstance.
If it did, then I imagine Arlen Specter wouldn't have been preparing legislation last July--which was killed from what I can tell--that would have given the courts the power of judicial review over signing statements.

Just turn in your libertarian creds right now, because that statement invalidated them all.

No, not at all. I can have no real expectation of privacy when I send something through the federally run mail service. As Eve pointed out, there are private shipping services I can and do use, instead of using the USPS. Lemme see...use a bloated federal service or a private company? Hmmm...I'll take the latter, thank you.

If it did, then I imagine Arlen Specter wouldn't have been preparing legislation last July--which was killed from what I can tell--that would have given the courts the power of judicial review over signing statements.

I guess you never read the Warren Commission report, and didn't conclude, as I did long ago, that Arlen Specter is a dimwit.

No, not at all. I can have no real expectation of privacy when I send something through the federally run mail service. As Eve pointed out, there are private shipping services I can and do use, instead of using the USPS. Lemme see...use a bloated federal service or a private company? Hmmm...I'll take the latter, thank you.

Better make sure that there's a privacy clause in your contract with FedEx is all I'm saying. The USPS has one--it's called federal law. Your protections, whether you choose to believe it or not, are far more guaranteed under the federal government thant hey are by any private corporation.

Exactly. Moreover, if you havn't done anything wrong, it really isn't a problem. Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy. And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

Ahem ...

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.

And I really hate that "if you haven't done anything wrong" crap. Make room on the box-car to the camp, bunky.

Better make sure that there's a privacy clause in your contract with FedEx is all I'm saying. The USPS has one--it's called federal law. Your protections, whether you choose to believe it or not, are far more guaranteed under the federal government thant hey are by any private corporation.

No, just more hoops for the feds to jump through. Helluva lot easier for them to meddle when you're dealing with something sent through a federal service.

Exactly. Moreover, if you havn't done anything wrong, it really isn't a problem. Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy. And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

I love the "you don't do anything wrong..." argument. As for the personal privacy rights you are sadly mistaken. Read the 4th ammendment and know that you have the right from unlawful search and seizure "to be protected in your person and property." Your mail=your personal property unless the name on it says Geroge W Bush he should keep his damn hands off. As a libertarian I am shocked Cluchistan.

And I really hate that "if you haven't done anything wrong" crap.

Yeah, I can't stand that either.

Make room on the box-car to the camp, bunky.

Nor can I stand Godwinning, though. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Moreover, if you havn't done anything wrong, it really isn't a problem. Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy. And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

Farnhamia pretty much nailed home the right to privacy, as for treasonous overthrow...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

That's from the Declaration of Independence. *nod*

Exactly. Moreover, if you havn't done anything wrong, it really isn't a problem. Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy. And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

Obviously you don't understand the concept of rights.

Yeah, I can't stand that either.



Nor can I stand Godwinning, though. :rolleyes:

Ack, I did Godwin there, didn't I? How ... embarrassing. :rolleyes:

Technically, the DoI holds no legal standing.

can anyone point out when and where President Bush made this claim?

can anyone find where in the signed legislature where he is given this power?

all the aritcle says basically is "he said"

Ack, I did Godwin there, didn't I? How ... embarrassing. :rolleyes:

Indeed you did. And you should be ashamed of yourself. :p

No, just more hoops for the feds to jump through. Helluva lot easier for them to meddle when you're dealing with something sent through a federal service.

More hoops? If anything, the recent wiretapping issue showed just how willing corporations are to roll over and present rearly for the feds when they ask for something, and individual consumers be damned.

More hoops? If anything, the recent wiretapping issue showed just how willing corporations are to roll over and present rearly for the feds when they ask for something, and individual consumers be damned.

Apparently, not all corporations rolled over.

More hoops? If anything, the recent wiretapping issue showed just how willing corporations are to roll over and present rearly for the feds when they ask for something, and individual consumers be damned.

Yeah...damned evil corporations. It always comes back to them, doesn't it?

/sarcasm

Yeah...damned evil corporations. It always comes back to them, doesn't it?


As a general rule, yes, yes it does.

Apparently, not all corporations rolled over.

No, they didn't, but Nazz's spew would be contradicted by that, so we should all ignore it.

*uses Jedi mind trick* Businesses are all evil.

:rolleyes:

As a general rule, yes, yes it does.

Wow...the brilliance of NSG...

can anyone point out when and where President Bush made this claim?

can anyone find where in the signed legislature where he is given this power?

all the aritcle says basically is "he said"
One would assume the Daily News was paraphrasing the text of the actual signing statement, and not Bush's actual comments. If you wish, I suppose you could look up the signing statement and post it here for all to see, and thus prove yourself superior to all around you.

It just occurred to me, we're worried over nothing. Bush doesn't read! I suppose he could have people read your mail for him, but then he'd have to listen to them describing what they found and with his attention span, that'll last what? ten minutes?

It just occurred to me, we're worried over nothing. Bush doesn't read! I suppose he could have people read your mail for him, but then he'd have to listen to them describing what they found and with his attention span, that'll last what? ten minutes?

"Open me up the ones with them naughty pictures. And close the door behind you for a few minutes. Heh-heh-heh-heh."

And, all those "rights" that people are feeling are being violated are given and maintained by the government. Since the government (apparently) has no problem with this, unless you want treasonous overthrow (perhaps not a bad idea, but...), there really is not too much to be done about it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Your evaluation is backwards. The government is not some all-powerful force that has deigned to grant the people what rights it sees fit. Instead, the people create the government in order to protect our rights. The government answers to us, not the other way around. And if any administration tries to turn that around, well... you heard Mr. Jefferson.

We, as a people, need to drop this hopeless, impotent attitude. It's not in the spirit of America.

Wow...the brilliance of NSG...

question for you, do you think fedex, UPS and DHL will be any less willing to acquiesse to the government's demands that it look in on private mail than the telecommunications companies were?

It just occurred to me, we're worried over nothing. Bush doesn't read! I suppose he could have people read your mail for him, but then he'd have to listen to them describing what they found and with his attention span, that'll last what? ten minutes?

And yes! The requisite "Bush is stupid" post that must appear in any NSG thread, be it about politics or Jell-O. Getting old, people. :rolleyes:

And yes! The requisite "Bush is stupid" post that must appear in any NSG thread, be it about politics or Jell-O. Getting old, people. :rolleyes:

But no less true...

And yes! The requisite "Bush is stupid" post that must appear in any NSG thread, be it about politics or Jell-O. Getting old, people. :rolleyes:

well...the man is pretty fucking stupid.

Yeah...damned evil corporations. It always comes back to them, doesn't it?

/sarcasm

Not always evil--most are simply amoral, and kiss the asses of the groups that can do them the most good, which is never--I repeat, never--the individual consumer.

question for you, do you think fedex, UPS and DHL will be any less willing to acquiesse to the government's demands that it look in on private mail than the telecommunications companies were?

If they want to keep customers, yes. Telecom companies are a different animal, because, in many cases, they have monopolies on service, and their customers have no choice but to go through them.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

The signing statement.

The pertinant section:

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.

And yes! The requisite "Bush is stupid" post that must appear in any NSG thread, be it about politics or Jell-O. Getting old, people. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Yeah, well, I find cringing every time the President of the United states opens his mouth to be getting a little old, too, Cluich. It's an established fact that, just as Clinton was a sex-fiend, Bush is an illiterate pseudo-redneck. Lighten up.

well...the man is pretty fucking stupid.

Keep it up. You seem smarter yourself with every post.

:rolleyes: Yeah, well, I find cringing every time the President of the United states opens his mouth to be getting a little old, too, Cluich. It's an established fact that, just as Clinton was a sex-fiend, Bush is an illiterate pseudo-redneck. Lighten up.

Now he can't read? Yeesh...your hyperbolic jabs are really getting ludicrous.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

The signing statement.

The pertinant section:

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.

Thanks--seems to me that the Daily News did a fair job of paraphrasing it.

If they want to keep customers, yes. Telecom companies are a different animal, because, in many cases, they have monopolies on service, and their customers have no choice but to go through them.

and, exactly, how will their customers...know?

And more importantly, what if all of them do it? Where's your alternative?

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

Welcome the United Soviet Socialist Republic of America.

Thanks--seems to me that the Daily News did a fair job of paraphrasing it.

Not at all. Try reading it again.

Now he can't read? Yeesh...your hyperbolic jabs are really getting ludicrous.

he's no more truly illiterate than clinton was a sex fiend. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If hyperboli and exaggeration was just fine for the democrat administration I see no need to play nice with the republican one.

Thanks--seems to me that the Daily News did a fair job of paraphrasing it.

It sounds like searches of USPS mail in "exigent" circumstances - when they have to make sure there's no anthrax in the envelope and don't have time to run downtown to get a warrant. Alternatively, they can open them as the law allows for foreign intelligence collection.

Seems like that would mean foreign postmarked mail in USPS hands, or mail being sent overseas.

It sounds like searches of USPS mail in "exigent" circumstances - when they have to make sure there's no anthrax in the envelope and don't have time to run downtown to get a warrant. Alternatively, they can open them as the law allows for foreign intelligence collection.

Seems like that would mean foreign postmarked mail in USPS hands, or mail being sent overseas.

But that's just it, earlier bush action has tried to define the law for foreign intelligence collection as "if it's going to or coming from another country, we can look at it if we feel like it"

he's no more truly illiterate than clinton was a sex fiend. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If hyperboli and exaggeration was just fine for the democrat administration I see no need to play nice with the republican one.

Seems you have no need to play nice with spelling, grammar, capitalisation or punctuation either. Run along.

Not at all. Try reading it again.

I've got a better idea--why don't you point out where the Daily News did a poor job of paraphrasing it? You know, put up or shut up?

But that's just it, earlier bush action has tried to define the law for foreign intelligence collection as "if it's going to or coming from another country, we can look at it if we feel like it"

It's been that way for quite a while.

Awww, you wound me deep fuckface.

And, may I add, suck my cock, bitch, and recognize that if you don't like what I have to say, go somewhere else. I don't give shit all what you have to say.

You're really not that important.

Flame much?

Flame much?

point? And no, not really a flame. However I enjoy taking those who would tell me what to do, and informing them of exactly what I think of their opinion.

Flame much?

Only a little. ;)

point?

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)

Flaming, as always, is not tolerated, and will be dealt with according to the moderator rules of engagement as outlined by [violet].

Their rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573). Cluich may be guilty of flamebaiting himself, to be fair.

Their rules. Cluich may be guilty of flamebaiting himself, to be fair.

oh but your definition assumes I was actually being angry. Indeed I wasn't, I merely felt it necessary to use descriptions that were most appropriate.

To say he's actually capable of making me angry is to vastly overestimate his importance.

Awww, you wound me deep fuckface.

And, may I add, suck my cock, bitch, and recognize that if you don't like what I have to say, go somewhere else. I don't give shit all what you have to say.

You're really not that important.

oh but your definition assumes I was actually being angry. Indeed I wasn't, I merely felt it necessary to use descriptions that were most appropriate.

To say he's actually capable of making me angry is to vastly overestimate his importance.


You'll have plenty of time to re-evaluate your own importance, I'm sure. *smirk*

oh but your definition assumes I was actually being angry. Indeed I wasn't, I merely felt it necessary to use descriptions that were most appropriate.

To say he's actually capable of making me angry is to vastly overestimate his importance.

Calling someone "fuckface"(sic) is a flame.

If they want to keep customers, yes. Telecom companies are a different animal, because, in many cases, they have monopolies on service, and their customers have no choice but to go through them.

Wait wait wait wait...and the mail has less of a monopoly than the telecommunication companies? There are three big shipping companies and exactly one letter carrier.

Are you even thinking this through or are you just flailing about in your attempt to willingly abdicate your rights?

Wait wait wait wait...and the mail has less of a monopoly than the telecommunication companies? There are three big shipping companies and exactly one letter carrier.

Are you even thinking this through or are you just flailing about in your attempt to willingly abdicate your rights?

The shipping companies also carry letters. No flailing at all.

This reminds me of the controversy over the Alien and Sedition acts in 1798... a little too far for my taste. Of course, the solutions then, having the state assemblies and congresses (in that case Virginia and Kentucky) denounce the act, would probably not work this time. Jefferson (one of the first American libertarians), the Vice President at the time, was so outraged (more because it was used to curtail Democratic-Republican Power by the Federalist majority than his opposition to sedition, as there were common law sedition procedures in every state) that he advocated secession... James Madison kept Jefferson from getting to out of control (for advocating secession was an easy route to impeachement). In the end, the laws were repealed by Jefferson's administration, though the Alien Enemies act is still on the books.

I hope this gets repealed, but we may have to wait until another administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

The signing statement.

The pertinant section:

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.

which is in reference to this section of the legislature.
`(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.'.
so yes, a PROVISION was made to allow opening of mail and it does require a SEARCH WARRANT.

which is a far cry from WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned. that the NY Daily Mail reports.

which is in reference to this section of the legislature.

so yes, a PROVISION was made to allow opening of mail and it does require a SEARCH WARRANT.

which is a far cry from that the NY Daily Mail reports.

Ah, freedom of the press, nothing like it... :)

Still, to have to think about this is annoying. Not that I send much through the mail anyways.

The shipping companies also carry letters. No flailing at all.

Nope, still flailing I'm afraid.

Lets do a count down-
Fed-Ex
UPS
DHL

AT&T
Verizon
Sprint
T-Mobile
Alltel
MetroPCS
Cingular
Vonage
Cable companies (Comcast, Cox, etc.)

So the answer to my question is, 'no, not thinking this through.' Thanks.

And the liberal media is, of course, all over this one (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html) (by which I mean it was only the NY Daily News and only two weeks after it happened).

What's it going to take for Americans to rise up en masse against this signing statement bullshit? President Hillary? What? Tell me, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.

We may as well all just line up, get the required implants and become quiet slaves to the imperial government. The next revolution is never going to happen because we are too interested in who wins the BCS and whether or not 'The Donald' is going to do Miss USA.

Let's face it, the government will do whatever it wants and we can't stop it. Not without making some effort to turn off the PSP and get off the couch, anyway.

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

And, if you don't want your chat conversations monitored, don't use the internet. And, if you don't want your calls monitored, don't use the telephone. Etc, etc, etc. The Nazis use to open the mail in thier country, is that what you want? I mean free communication with other human beings is sooo overrated, right?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

The signing statement.

The pertinant section:

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.

As JuNii points out above, this signing statement is a summary of the POTUS's interpretation of how the Executive is going to carry out the law referenced above.

Now the law clearly states that US domestic mail cannot be opened without a search warrant. Obviously, mail from a US citizen going abroad, or mail going to a US citizen from abroad is subject to search and seizure.

From my reading of his signing statement, it would appear that Bush is also granting himself to right to open that mail without a warrant if circumstances demand it.

Am I wrong?

Nope, still flailing I'm afraid.

Lets do a count down-
Fed-Ex
UPS
DHL

AT&T
Verizon
Sprint
T-Mobile
Alltel
MetroPCS
Cingular
Vonage
Cable companies (Comcast, Cox, etc.)

So the answer to my question is, 'no, not thinking this through.' Thanks.

The difference is, though, that in many places, you don't have a choice of telecom carriers. Take cable compnies, for instance. Where I live, we've got Comcast. That's it. No choice. That's called a monopoly. If I want cable, I've got to get it from Comcast. If I want to send something -- be it a letter or a package -- I've got options.

It's you who's not thinking this through, but that's to be expected, I suppose, when you're patently wrong.

And, if you don't want your chat conversations monitored, don't use the internet. And, if you don't want your calls monitored, don't use the telephone. Etc, etc, etc. The Nazis use to open the mail in thier country, is that what you want? I mean free communication with other human beings is sooo overrated, right?

Thank you for Godwinning this thread -- again. The first time wasn't bad enough.

The difference is, though, that in many places, you don't have a choice of telecom carriers. Take cable compnies, for instance. Where I live, we've got Comcast. That's it. No choice. That's called a monopoly. If I want cable, I've got to get it from Comcast. If I want to send something -- be it a letter or a package -- I've got options.

It's you who's not thinking this through, but that's to be expected, I suppose, when you're patently wrong.

Yes...you don't have a choice in your cable company, but we're talking about phones champ. You know, that industry that had the big anti-trust thing in the 80s so that you do actually have a choice in your local carrier, you know, by law? Not to mention all those other non-cable carriers I listed?

Good job, slugger.

Yes...you don't have a choice in your cable company, but we're talking about phones champ. You know, that industry that had the big anti-trust thing in the 80s so that you do actually have a choice in your local carrier, you know, by law? Not to mention all those other non-cable carriers I listed?

Good job, slugger.

And only a couple of those are land-line based, but the only reason I have a land line is for the DSL anyways. Many of us use wireless as a primary phone these days, and the variety is not quite infinite, but close. As for monopoly, I do find it distressing that we have no more Bell South, Pac Bell, or SBC any more... AT and T found a way to re-absorb them again. I guess they were just fooling around when they broke up the baby Bells :)

Yes...you don't have a choice in your cable company, but we're talking about phones champ. You know, that industry that had the big anti-trust thing in the 80s so that you do actually have a choice in your local carrier, you know, by law? Not to mention all those other non-cable carriers I listed?

Good job, slugger.

Oh, you might have a choice on mobiles, but you still have no choice on regular ol' landlines (read: non-digital). Ma Bell may have been broken up in the early '80s, but it really hasn't changed anything, just decentralised things into regional monopolies.

And only a couple of those are land-line based, but the only reason I have a land line is for the DSL anyways. Many of us use wireless as a primary phone these days, and the variety is not quite infinite, but close. As for monopoly, I do find it distressing that we have no more Bell South, Pac Bell, or SBC any more... AT and T found a way to re-absorb them again. I guess they were just fooling around when they broke up the baby Bells :)

Mobile companies where involved in the wiretap scandal so they where fair game, also because there are people (such as myself) that use mobile service as my only phone service. That, and it would have been a pain in the ass to list all local carriers.

But yeah, AT&T does seem to be re-absorbing like that liquid Terminator...

Oh, you might have a choice on mobiles, but you still have no choice on regular ol' landlines (read: non-digital). Ma Bell may have been broken up in the early '80s, but it really hasn't changed anything, just decentralised things into regional monopolies.

Since the wiretapping issue included mobiles, and you do have a choice in land carriers, we can just put this to bed now.

Ah, freedom of the press, nothing like it... :)

Still, to have to think about this is annoying. Not that I send much through the mail anyways.
yep... which is why I try to confirm as much as possible.

and it just means you make sure that your addresses are clear and legable on your mail and packages. which means I gotta clean up my penmenship! :p

From my reading of his signing statement, it would appear that Bush is also granting himself to right to open that mail without a warrant if circumstances demand it.

Am I wrong?You're absolutely right, and those who are reading it otherwise are dense, plain and simple.

those who don't understand what it means misunderstand how signing statements actually work.

A signing statement, as bush uses it, is basically to say "here's how we interpret the law".

So the law says "no opening mail without a warrant".

Bush's signing statement says "in reference to the part of the law which says 'no opening mail without a warrant', the executive office interprets 'no opening mail without a warrant' to be consistant, and allow for executive power which allows us to open mail without a warrant"

That's why he was making reference to that section, he is saying that this section does not limit, and does not apply to his executive power to open mail absent a warrant.

those who don't understand what it means misunderstand how signing statements actually work.

A signing statement, as bush uses it, is basically to say "here's how we interpret the law".

So the law says "no opening mail without a warrant".

Bush's signing statement says "in reference to the part of the law which says 'no opening mail without a warrant', the executive office interprets 'no opening mail without a warrant' to be consistant, and allow for executive power which allows us to open mail without a warrant"

That's why he was making reference to that section, he is saying that this section does not limit, and does not apply to his executive power to open mail absent a warrant.unfortunatly, once signed, it's not what the President SAYS, but what is written. as long as it's not written that the Executive Power has that exemption, it's not part of the legislature.

after all, years after President Bush is dead and buried, who's to say what he really did say or didn't say.

unfortunatly, once signed, it's not what the President SAYS, but what is written. as long as it's not written that the Executive Power has that exemption, it's not part of the legislature.

after all, years after President Bush is dead and buried, who's to say what he really did say or didn't say.

a signing statement isn't...law, exactly. The executive's duty is to execute the law. A signing statement is basically saying "here is how we interpret this law, and we shall execute it consistant with our interpretation".

Now, this interpretation may be wrong, and the legislation may have, at its discression, the right to clarify such legislation to define. Of course Bush's argument is also "the legislature can't limit executive power, so even if you tell me you can't, you don't have the power to do that".

The only entity that can actually limit the executive is the agency whose job it is to interpret and define constitutional limitations, the judiciary.

a signing statement isn't...law, exactly. The executive's duty is to execute the law. A signing statement is basically saying "here is how we interpret this law, and we shall execute it consistant with our interpretation".

Now, this interpretation may be wrong, and the legislation may have, at its discression, the right to clarify such legislation to define. Of course Bush's argument is also "the legislature can't limit executive power, so even if you tell me you can't, you don't have the power to do that".

The only entity that can actually limit the executive is the agency whose job it is to interpret and define constitutional limitations, the judiciary.

yep. one of the check and balances.

which goes back to the point that the Executive Branch still has to have a warrant to open mail unless it fall into the other catagories... such as illegable written address, or permission from the Addressee.

As JuNii points out above, this signing statement is a summary of the POTUS's interpretation of how the Executive is going to carry out the law referenced above.

Now the law clearly states that US domestic mail cannot be opened without a search warrant. Obviously, mail from a US citizen going abroad, or mail going to a US citizen from abroad is subject to search and seizure.

From my reading of his signing statement, it would appear that Bush is also granting himself to right to open that mail without a warrant if circumstances demand it.

Am I wrong?kinda wrong.

President Bush, or any other President, cannot grant themselves anything with a signing statement. What will stand and be put in the books, is not what he said, but what is written.

yep. one of the check and balances.

which goes back to the point that the Executive Branch still has to have a warrant to open mail unless it fall into the other catagories... such as illegable written address, or permission from the Addressee.

well that's the thing. According to the signing statement, Bush believes he CAN open mail without a warrant, as per his constitutional executive powers. That's the point. The legislature can not limit the power of the executive, seperation of powers. So IF the executive has the power to, in certain circumstances, as part of executive power, to open mail without a warrant, then the legislature can not take that away. No branch can limit the constitutional powers of another branch. Bush believes the executive DOES have the power, and according to that belief, the legislature can't do anything to limit it.

Whether that is true or not is a matter for the courts.

well that's the thing. According to the signing statement, Bush believes he CAN open mail without a warrant, as per his constitutional executive powers. That's the point. The legislature can not limit the power of the executive, seperation of powers. So IF the executive has the power to, in certain circumstances, as part of executive power, to open mail without a warrant, then the legislature can not take that away. No branch can limit the constitutional powers of another branch. Bush believes the executive DOES have the power, and according to that belief, the legislature can't do anything to limit it.

Whether that is true or not is a matter for the courts.
and he can try... and those checks and balances will slam into him since it's not written into the legislature.

he can fight it in court, maybe he'll win, maybe he won't. but as long as the Legislature itself doesn't grant that exception... he has a long fight ahead of him.

that's why he needed the MCA 2006 to define Non-Legal Enemy Combatant.

and he can try... and those checks and balances will slam into him since it's not written into the legislature.

he can fight it in court, maybe he'll win, maybe he won't. but as long as the Legislature itself doesn't grant that exception... he has a long fight ahead of him.

Again, you're not understanding me. This has nothing to do with THIS LAW, nothing at all.

The executive branch has certain powers under the constitution, powers entirely its own. NOTHING the legislature can do can restrict or take away those powers. For instance, veto rights. The executive has veto powers, and even if the legislature, tomorrow, passes a law that says "the president doesn't have veto rights anymore" it would be invalid, because the president DOES have veto rights, and a simple law can not change that.

What bush is saying is that he has inherent constitutional powers, powers granted to the executive by the constitution, to act in certain ways at certain times. If he is correct, then nothing, NOTHING the legislature does can change that. And that is true, NOTHING the federal legislature can do will change constitutionally granted powers

So bush is claiming the constitution grants him the power to open mail without a warrant. IF HE IS RIGHT, then even if congress says "you can't open mail without a warrant" it doesn't matter. Just as any law that says "you can't veto a bill" would be invalid, as he does have that power, so to would a law that says "you can't open mail without a warrant" be invalid, if he has that power.

He believes he does, and this signing statement reflects that. It says "we will adhere to the law that says we shall not open mail without a warrant in so far as our constitutionally granted powers allows us to open mail without a warrant."

He's not CHANGING the law. He is saying that, in his belief, the constitution grants him certain powers, and any efforts by the legislature to limit those powers is not binding, and as such does not need to be adhered to.

The question is, does the constitution grant him that power? That's an issue for the courts to decide. But in a matter of constitutional powers, the legislature...doesn't matter much. As I said, the legislature can't pass a law that would strip the president of his veto. Likewise, if the executive does have the power to open mail without a warrant, the legislature can't limit that either.

The question is does he have that power.

The President may not directly contradict the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution in any signing statement and expect his "interpretation" to pass legal muster. IF SCOTUS and the the justices apply "originalist" philosophy, that signing statement is toast. Oddly enough, all of the conservative jurists, except maybe AJ Alito would likely seriously frown on this.

Everywhere we turn this guy is trying to make an Enabling Act real. The question is, does this new Congress have the stones to stop him dead in his tracks.

Again, you're not understanding me. This has nothing to do with THIS LAW, nothing at all.

The executive branch has certain powers under the constitution, powers entirely its own. NOTHING the legislature can do can restrict or take away those powers. For instance, veto rights. The executive has veto powers, and even if the legislature, tomorrow, passes a law that says "the president doesn't have veto rights anymore" it would be invalid, because the president DOES have veto rights, and a simple law can not change that.

What bush is saying is that he has inherent constitutional powers, powers granted to the executive by the constitution, to act in certain ways at certain times. If he is correct, then nothing, NOTHING the legislature does can change that. And that is true, NOTHING the federal legislature can do will change constitutionally granted powers

So bush is claiming the constitution grants him the power to open mail without a warrant. IF HE IS RIGHT, then even if congress says "you can't open mail without a warrant" it doesn't matter. Just as any law that says "you can't veto a bill" would be invalid, as he does have that power, so to would a law that says "you can't open mail without a warrant" be invalid, if he has that power.

He believes he does, and this signing statement reflects that. It says "we will adhere to the law that says we shall not open mail without a warrant in so far as our constitutionally granted powers allows us to open mail without a warrant."

He's not CHANGING the law. He is saying that, in his belief, the constitution grants him certain powers, and any efforts by the legislature to limit those powers is not binding, and as such does not need to be adhered to.

The question is, does the constitution grant him that power? That's an issue for the courts to decide. But in a matter of constitutional powers, the legislature...doesn't matter much. As I said, the legislature can't pass a law that would strip the president of his veto. Likewise, if the executive does have the power to open mail without a warrant, the legislature can't limit that either.

The question is does he have that power.
No, I think the question is "Who will stop him from exercising that power?". It's kind of like Andrew Jackson's disagreement with the USSC, i.e. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

No, I think the question is "Who will stop him from exercising that power?". It's kind of like Andrew Jackson's disagreement with the USSC, i.e. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

To an extent there is that. However, to directly, and blantantly act in violation of the judgement of the supreme court is to act contrary to the constitution as interpreted.

It is thus a violation of the oath of office, and grounds for immediate impeachment.

To an extent there is that. However, to directly, and blantantly act in violation of the judgement of the supreme court is to act contrary to the constitution as interpreted.

It is thus a violation of the oath of office, and grounds for immediate impeachment.

I didn't care so much before, but now I hope they go through with those articles of impeachment. Watch him try to signing statement that away.

I didn't care so much before, but now I hope they go through with those articles of impeachment. Watch him try to signing statement that away.

if Bush tried to in some way argue that he has executive powers to stay in office beyond either a removal of office or the two term limitation I promise you there will be riots in the streets.

Again, you're not understanding me. This has nothing to do with THIS LAW, nothing at all.

The executive branch has certain powers under the constitution, powers entirely its own. NOTHING the legislature can do can restrict or take away those powers. For instance, veto rights. The executive has veto powers, and even if the legislature, tomorrow, passes a law that says "the president doesn't have veto rights anymore" it would be invalid, because the president DOES have veto rights, and a simple law can not change that. actually, no. if a bill or legislature is veto'ed, it can be overridden by a 2/3rd majority vote by congress. then it becomes law without the Presidential signature.

so even if say, your "the president doesn't have veto rights anymore" does make it to the President and he veto's it, it then goes back to Congress where they can either accept it, Change it according to the President's notation, or vote again, only this time, they need 2/3rds to have it passed.

What bush is saying is that he has inherent constitutional powers, powers granted to the executive by the constitution, to act in certain ways at certain times. If he is correct, then nothing, NOTHING the legislature does can change that. And that is true, NOTHING the federal legislature can do will change constitutionally granted powersif the Executive Branch did have that power, it would be ones granted in other legilations which define under what situations that power can be excercised and even if such power was granted, he would still have to justify it in court

So bush is claiming the constitution grants him the power to open mail without a warrant. IF HE IS RIGHT, then even if congress says "you can't open mail without a warrant" it doesn't matter. Just as any law that says "you can't veto a bill" would be invalid, as he does have that power, so to would a law that says "you can't open mail without a warrant" be invalid, if he has that power.

He believes he does, and this signing statement reflects that. It says "we will adhere to the law that says we shall not open mail without a warrant in so far as our constitutionally granted powers allows us to open mail without a warrant."

He's not CHANGING the law. He is saying that, in his belief, the constitution grants him certain powers, and any efforts by the legislature to limit those powers is not binding, and as such does not need to be adhered to.

The question is, does the constitution grant him that power? That's an issue for the courts to decide. But in a matter of constitutional powers, the legislature...doesn't matter much. As I said, the legislature can't pass a law that would strip the president of his veto. Likewise, if the executive does have the power to open mail without a warrant, the legislature can't limit that either.

The question is does he have that power.and as I said (and agree with you,) that would be for the Courts to decide. which is why I brought up the point that he will have to fight it in court.

actually, no. if a bill or legislature is veto'ed, it can be overridden by a 2/3rd majority vote by congress. then it becomes law without the Presidential signature.

so even if say, your "the president doesn't have veto rights anymore" does make it to the President and he veto's it, it then goes back to Congress where they can either accept it, Change it according to the President's notation, or vote again, only this time, they need 2/3rds to have it passed.

Um....what? Even if 2/3 of congress did pass a law that says "the president doesn't have veto power anymore" and gets around the veto in the first place, it would STILL be invalid. Congress, simply, can not pass that law and have it be legally enforcable. They do not have that power


if the Executive Branch did have that power, it would be ones granted in other legilations which define under what situations that power can be excercised

I say again...um...what? Do you know how the constitution works? The legislature doesn't define constitutional powers of the executive. The constitution does. IF, as bush is arguing, there are some inherent constitutional powers not spelled out in plain english, it would be up to the court to decide if that is true.

The legislature has nothing, NOTHING WHAT SO EVER, so please stop saying it does, in determining the constitutional limitations and powers of the executive. The legislature does not have the power to interpret the constitution.

So, what you fine constitutional lawyers are saying is that Bush can read your mail until the SCOTUS openly tells him to stop.

But he still doesn't have to. You have to impeach him to really stop him.

Okay. Now what's to stop the next POTUS from doing the same thing? Does the impeachment process create any limitation on the power of the office of the President, or just the individual?

Um....what? Even if 2/3 of congress did pass a law that says "the president doesn't have veto power anymore" and gets around the veto in the first place, it would STILL be invalid. Congress, simply, can not pass that law and have it be legally enforcable. They do not have that power

Well, it would technically take 3/4 of both houses and 3/4 of the states.....

=)


So bush is claiming the constitution grants him the power to open mail without a warrant. IF HE IS RIGHT, then even if congress says "you can't open mail without a warrant" it doesn't matter. Just as any law that says "you can't veto a bill" would be invalid, as he does have that power, so to would a law that says "you can't open mail without a warrant" be invalid, if he has that power.

Considering that the Constitutional duty of the executive branch is to uphold the law, I'd be interested to see what portion of the Constitution he thinks grants him that power.

He believes he does, and this signing statement reflects that. It says "we will adhere to the law that says we shall not open mail without a warrant in so far as our constitutionally granted powers allows us to open mail without a warrant."

But, just as he has with other signing statements, I don't think he's claiming a Constitutional authority to do so. What he seems to be saying is that it is his Constitutional duty to enforce the law (as head of the executive branch), so he thinks he has the power to enforce it any old way he likes, even if it means not really enforcing it.

When it comes right down to it, the executive branch can pretty much always choose not to enforce the law or to enforce it selectively. Unless legal action is brought, that's just the way it'll happen, no matter what laws are on the books. Bush's signing statements are his way of saying, "Yeah, it's the law, but I'm going to deal with it my way, no matter how it was intended."

He's not CHANGING the law. He is saying that, in his belief, the constitution grants him certain powers, and any efforts by the legislature to limit those powers is not binding, and as such does not need to be adhered to.

If this is true, he's an idiot. He could achieve the exact same thing by simply using the veto power, instead of issuing signing statements contrary to hundreds of the bills he's signed. Why sign something into law if you think it is not (or should not be) legally enforceable?

So, what you fine constitutional lawyers are saying is that Bush can read your mail until the SCOTUS openly tells him to stop.

Generally that's the way a constitutional question works, although it need not be scotus, a lower court can rule that way and SCOTUS can uphold it, or decline to hear it.

But he still doesn't have to. You have to impeach him to really stop him.

Okay. Now what's to stop the next POTUS from doing the same thing? Does the impeachment process create any limitation on the power of the office of the President, or just the individual?

It would mean that THAT SESSION of the house considered those actions to be a high crime or misdemenor. It doesn't necessarily hold that future sessions will, however.

To an extent there is that. However, to directly, and blantantly act in violation of the judgement of the supreme court is to act contrary to the constitution as interpreted.

It is thus a violation of the oath of office, and grounds for immediate impeachment.
All I can say is that disregarding a USSC decision didn't get Andrew Jackson impeached and I doubt that GWB would be either.

All that being said, I'm not sure how significant this problem is. It's not like a Carnivore-type machine can automatically read and flag worrisome passages out of handwritten mail.

All I can say is that disregarding a USSC decision didn't get Andrew Jackson impeached and I doubt that GWB would be either.

Oh all together different times though.

All I can say is that disregarding a USSC decision didn't get Andrew Jackson impeached and I doubt that GWB would be either.

All that being said, I'm not sure how significant this problem is. It's not like a Carnivore-type machine can automatically read and flag worrisome passages out of handwritten mail.

Oh all together different times though.

Yeah--Jackson was in far greater danger of impeachment than Dubya will ever be.

What are "emergency conditions", exactly?
He didn't get his issue of Forbes, so he'll take it from someone elses mail.

how about a constitutional challenge? it cant possibly be legal for a president to add anything to a bill that has been passed by the legislature. thats why we have seperation of powers isnt it?

dont be thinking that the next president wont do the same thing if s/he can get away with it. its a power thing not a bush thing.

It isn't legal, but neo-con's have this notion of the "Unitarian Executive" which they say means that no other branch of government is entitled to hold any authority over the executive branch. As Dubya himself summarized it "if Congress tells me to hand over documents, I just don't do it."

They're laying the ground work for a court battle which, if it comes, they hope will come by a friendly activist judge (yup, neo-con's love activist judges when it's their activist judges) who will give equal weight to the spirit with which Congress wrote the law and the spirit with which the President signed the law. Of course, Constitutionaly the president has nothing to do with deciding what a law means except to decide how he will enforce it, and that's only those laws that are in his hands.

However, this practice also serves to prevent challenges, because if people within the bureaucracy think "the president's word defines this law as much as Congress'," then he may well not bother to bring a challenge forward and no one will pay attention to the gross violation of our rights.

So, what you fine constitutional lawyers are saying is that Bush can read your mail until the SCOTUS openly tells him to stop.

But he still doesn't have to. You have to impeach him to really stop him.

Okay. Now what's to stop the next POTUS from doing the same thing? Does the impeachment process create any limitation on the power of the office of the President, or just the individual?

Yes. And if the cops decide to stop enforcing laws on murder, you can kill anyone you want until the cops decide to stop you.

It isn't right just because the authorities are asleep at the wheel, but what's to stop him?

He should, by rights, be impeached. If nothing else he is not "faithfully executing the office of the president of the United States." By pretending that he can interpret a law in a way that is completly contrary to the law he is signing, he is showing bad faith. He's violating his oath.

if Bush tried to in some way argue that he has executive powers to stay in office beyond either a removal of office or the two term limitation I promise you there will be riots in the streets.

Let's hope. At this point there has to be a little discomfort to ail from this neo-con national disease.

oh but your definition assumes I was actually being angry. Indeed I wasn't, I merely felt it necessary to use descriptions that were most appropriate.

To say he's actually capable of making me angry is to vastly overestimate his importance.
We don't really give a damn what you think of any given poster, but you WILL control how you express yourself where other people play.

3 day forumban.

Um....what? Even if 2/3 of congress did pass a law that says "the president doesn't have veto power anymore" and gets around the veto in the first place, it would STILL be invalid. Congress, simply, can not pass that law and have it be legally enforcable. They do not have that powerI agree it would be struck down (because it is one of the checks and balances) it does illustrate that a Veto isn't the end all be all stop that some think it is... well the USA's Presidental Veto that is...

I say again...um...what? Do you know how the constitution works? The legislature doesn't define constitutional powers of the executive. The constitution does. IF, as bush is arguing, there are some inherent constitutional powers not spelled out in plain english, it would be up to the court to decide if that is true.

The legislature has nothing, NOTHING WHAT SO EVER, so please stop saying it does, in determining the constitutional limitations and powers of the executive. The legislature does not have the power to interpret the constitution.no, just saying that provisions under other acts may grant it under specified situations. as for it being in the Consitution, the VETO isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

and no, it (The Constitution) doesn't grant the Executive any such power. which is why I only mentioned previous laws and legislation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

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.

It doesn't sound that bad to me. Sounds very reasonable.

the PDF of "H.R. 6407, the 'Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act'":

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7709/hr6407pgo.pdf

I find it to be quite humorous how some think the administration has nothing better to do but to go through everbody's personal mail.......hmmm...more than 300,000,000 citizens and the President is personally going to go through everybody's mail... :rolleyes:

I agree it would be struck down (because it is one of the checks and balances) it does illustrate that a Veto isn't the end all be all stop that some think it is... well the USA's Presidental Veto that is...

no, just saying that provisions under other acts may grant it under specified situations. as for it being in the Consitution, the VETO isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

and no, it (The Constitution) doesn't grant the Executive any such power. which is why I only mentioned previous laws and legislation.

The word VETO isn't in the constitution, however, the POTUS not approving a bill and returning it to the houses w/ his objection is.

Art 1, Sect. 7.

I thought the federal government could just open your mail anyway.

It can certianly demand to see all you bank statements going back five years for no reason.

I thought the federal government could just open your mail anyway.

It can certianly demand to see all you bank statements going back five years for no reason.

Not without a warrant. What Bush wants to change that to is "if I say we need to."

You guys do realize that this sort of thing has been going on since the days since George Washington and the Continental Congress intercepted the mail of British sympathizers, right? I'm not trying to justify it, but I'm telling all of the people who are saying "I want to hurt Bush personally for this" etc., Bush is hardly the first President to have done this.

You guys do realize that this sort of thing has been going on since the days since George Washington and the Continental Congress intercepted the mail of British sympathizers, right? I'm not trying to justify it, but I'm telling all of the people who are saying "I want to hurt Bush personally for this" etc., Bush is hardly the first President to have done this.

I agree but unfortunately with most here, everything is President Bush's fault. Doesn't matter whether it happened 200 yrs ago or 200 yrs from now it will ALWAYS be President Bush's fault. :p

I agree but unfortunately with most here, everything is President Bush's fault. Doesn't matter whether it happened 200 yrs ago or 200 yrs from now it will ALWAYS be President Bush's fault. :p

Yeah, well, you people have been blaming everything on Clinton for Bush's entire term in office, so it's fair play, don't you think?

Yeah, well, you people have been blaming everything on Clinton for Bush's entire term in office, so it's fair play, don't you think?
At least Bush is still in office and is the one signing the signing statement. It must be nice to live in fairytale land like so many Bush supporters.

Yeah, well, you people have been blaming everything on Clinton for Bush's entire term in office, so it's fair play, don't you think?

I haven't been blaming "everything" on Clinton. Just 2 things, him not accepting bin Laden when he was being offered to us and then selling off Top Secret information to China. That's it. Last I knew 2 items wasn't "everything".

Whenever there is a legitimate terrorist threat, by bypassing the judge could save many lives. The government is not planning on reading everybody's personal mail as some may think, that's just ridiculous. Time is of essence and it's in the publics best interests. President Bush is talking about the legitimate threats and they want to know what terrorists plans are and what the communications are. I see good things with this just like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the likes. Before everybody claiming that I'm a troll who will go with everything President Bush says, I must tell you I'm completely against how he handles the Immigration and a couple of other things.

Whenever there is a legitimate terrorist threat, by bypassing the judge could save many lives. The government is not planning on reading everybody's personal mail as some may think, that's just ridiculous. Time is of essence and it's in the publics best interests. President Bush is talking about the legitimate threats and they want to know what terrorists plans are and what the communications are. I see good things with this just like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the likes. Before everybody claiming that I'm a troll who will go with everything President Bush says, I must tell you I'm completely against how he handles the Immigration and a couple of other things.

Troll? Hah.

The word you're looking for is 'dupe'. Dupe.

Troll? Hah.

The word you're looking for is 'dupe'. Dupe.

I could live with "dupe", I do have to say I sometimes can be quite gullable but I do still strongly support the 3 above mentioned Acts. :D

I could live with "dupe", I do have to say I sometimes can be quite gullable but I do still strongly support the 3 above mentioned Acts. :D
Not the Constitution? I prefer that myself.

Anthrax in the mail should do it. Let's see them open that letter.
Or a dog turd. Either equally effective.
American citizens just need to send a clear msg that this signing statement is not on.
If everyone starts posting dog turds addressed to O.B.Laden, the powers-that-be might soon get that msg.

Whenever there is a legitimate terrorist threat, by bypassing the judge could save many lives. The government is not planning on reading everybody's personal mail as some may think, that's just ridiculous. Time is of essence and it's in the publics best interests. President Bush is talking about the legitimate threats and they want to know what terrorists plans are and what the communications are. I see good things with this just like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the likes. Before everybody claiming that I'm a troll who will go with everything President Bush says, I must tell you I'm completely against how he handles the Immigration and a couple of other things.

Not the Constitution? I prefer that myself.
ummm... Nazz... President Bush did not write the Consitution. :p

ummm... Nazz... President Bush did not write the Consitution. :p

Ummm... JuNii... Nazz did not quote the portion you bolded.

Ummm... JuNii... Nazz did not quote the portion you bolded.

Not that it matters--after all, JuNii's one of the forum firefighters, and would never do anything that could make another take offense, right?

Not that it matters--after all, JuNii's one of the forum firefighters, and would never do anything that could make another take offense, right?

My long-held assumption has been that that purported 'organization' believes in the time-honoured tradition of fighting fires primarily with... erm, with fire.


Edit: Though I have the annoying sigs turned off, so to be fair, I'd forgotten that laughable throwaway line.

Not without a warrant. What Bush wants to change that to is "if I say we need to."

If you call an IRS audit a warrant, I suppose so.

As much as I hate to say it (I'm a libertarian), if you send something through the federal mail, you can't expect the federal government to keep its nose out of it. If you don't want the feds snooping through your mail, don't use the US Postal Service.

Maybe, but given how some people make noises about how if you send something outside your house, it's public domain and thus acceptable to listen in onto, it's not that hard to imagine the next step being legally sanctioned mugging of people out in the open for interrogation purposes.

What are "emergency conditions", exactly?

Apparently, whatever the hell he says they are.

Even my diehard conservative parents, who usually foam at the mouth about "the damn liberals" and "the appeaser Democrats", are seriously, "What the HELL is he doing? That's absolutely WRONG!"

I think it's the first time we've agreed in about six years.

Is it a violation of personal privacy? yeah. But, I don't recall anywhere that a person is promised privacy.

Fourth Amendment comes to mind... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Especially the bit about needing a warrant to seize property.

Now that Bush has done it, I'm sure that the next Democratic President will do the same.

That's why they aren't challenging it in court. Because they like it just as much as Bush does.Unfortunately you may be right. They'd never dare sign it themselves, but since it's already there and no one's made a stink, they may decide it could have its uses.

It's in the publics best interests.

Fine...we'll start with YOUR mail.

Fine...we'll start with YOUR mail.I just love the folks who say "If you don't have anything to hide/aren't doing anything wrong, why would you mind?" Sure, if we're going that route why expect them to bother with warrants for anything. If you're not doing anything wrong surely you don't mind them popping in whenever just to look through your stuff and read your e-mail

Why bother getting an attorney when you get arrested? Afterall if you're doing nothing wrong I'm sure the government will clear it all up. But if you were arrested in the first place, I'm sure the cops wouldn't make any mistakes afterall.

I just love the folks who say "If you don't have anything to hide/aren't doing anything wrong, why would you mind?" Sure, if we're going that route why expect them to bother with warrants for anything. If you're not doing anything wrong surely you don't mind them popping in whenever just to look through your stuff and read your e-mail

Why bother getting an attorney when you get arrested? Afterall if you're doing nothing wrong I'm sure the government will clear it all up. But if you were arrested in the first place, I'm sure the cops wouldn't make any mistakes afterall.

Don't you love where their line of thinking leads??

There is one good thing that could come out of it though...we'd be spending less money on lawyers. :p

If a line item veto is unconstitutional, then this bullshit damn well should be.

how about a constitutional challenge? it cant possibly be legal for a president to add anything to a bill that has been passed by the legislature. thats why we have seperation of powers isnt it?

dont be thinking that the next president wont do the same thing if s/he can get away with it. its a power thing not a bush thing.

It is likely that signing statements carry no legal weight whatsoever.
However to test it, he has to be caught breaking a law that he has passed
whilst adding a signing statement to it claiming a right to ignore the law.

It is what a lot of Bush's administrations actions have been, attempts to cloud issues and provide some claim
however tenuous to legal cover for their actions.

See the whole let's redefine the word torture memo series.

One thing is reasonably clear, anytime that Bush has added a signing statement to a bill that should be taken
as meaning, the administration is currently committing these activities outside of any applicable laws and plans to continue doing so.

I could live with "dupe", I do have to say I sometimes can be quite gullable but I do still strongly support the 3 above mentioned Acts. :D

I have a bridge to sell you....in death valley.

Fine...we'll start with YOUR mail.

You walked right into that one!
Bodaceous said pretty much the same thing several times and was widely ignored: roughly 'the executive would never bother reading innocent citizens' mail'
That was either naive or deliberately disingenous. I mean, Watergate. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: Dunlaore (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12174110&postcount=148) <- Wish I'd said that.

Ummm... JuNii... Nazz did not quote the portion you bolded.

no, he didn't, I did to show that KB was referring to the policies that Pres Bush signed. Nazz's statement makes it sound like he belives President Bush wrote out the constitution if the thread of the conversation was followed.

But if Nazz wants everyone to think that He/She thinks that President Bush created the Constitution... *shrugs*

Not that it matters--after all, JuNii's one of the forum firefighters, and would never do anything that could make another take offense, right?ya know Nazz... I find that when you can't refute my arguments, you tend to pull out the "oh, you're flaming me and you are a Forum Firefighter" line. especially when you are the only one with the flame throwing.

My long-held assumption has been that that purported 'organization' believes in the time-honoured tradition of fighting fires primarily with... erm, with fire.


Edit: Though I have the annoying sigs turned off, so to be fair, I'd forgotten that laughable throwaway line.ever heard of a technique firefighters use called "A Controlled Burn"? ;)

One thing is reasonably clear, anytime that Bush has added a signing statement to a bill that should be taken
as meaning, the administration is currently committing these activities outside of any applicable laws and plans to continue doing so.


I would add that this sort of action is not limited to the Bush admistration or even the USA. I believe all governements read some mail some of the time. If you send anything over a border, they will look at it if they have the time. Fortunately, they often do not.

I think it should be made expressly illegal for all government authorities to open mail. They will still do it, mind you, but if they want to arrest and try you for information or objects contained in the mail, then they have to explain to the judge why they broke the law.

This keeps them accountable. And that's what democracy is. A government accountable to its citizenry.

“Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” This was Secretary of State Henry
Stimson’s justification after World War II had begun for closing the State Department’s code-breaking office in 1929. See http://www.bartleby.com/73/1531.html.

I would add that this sort of action is not limited to the Bush admistration or even the USA. I believe all governements read some mail some of the time. If you send anything over a border, they will look at it if they have the time. Fortunately, they often do not.

I think it should be made expressly illegal for all government authorities to open mail. They will still do it, mind you, but if they want to arrest and try you for information or objects contained in the mail, then they have to explain to the judge why they broke the law.

This keeps them accountable. And that's what democracy is. A government accountable to its citizenry.

The ability of the head of state to override national legislation to then perhaps attempt to hold,
question and/or torture people without judicial oversight or recourse to rule of law, is not limited to the USA or the Bush administration.
However the company being kept for that comparison is not the best.

“Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” This was Secretary of State Henry
Stimson’s justification after World War II had begun for closing the State Department’s code-breaking office in 1929. See http://www.bartleby.com/73/1531.html.

You are not seriously comparing private domestic mail of US citizens with coded transmissions used by enemy militaries, are you?

One would assume that in a democracy, one would be treated differently than the other.

You are not seriously comparing private domestic mail of US citizens with coded transmissions used by enemy militaries, are you?

One would assume that in a democracy, one would be treated differently than the other.

If the enemy is using the public mail (or email, or phone calls) to communicate...

If the enemy is using the public mail (or email, or phone calls) to communicate...

Its wonderful how easy it is to justify... now just take the argument to its logical
conclusion.

If the enemy is using the public mail (or email, or phone calls) to communicate...
'The Enemy' could be running messages written in invisible ink on my underwear for all I know, but that doesn't mean I want MI6 rooting through my dirty laundry.

Its wonderful how easy it is to justify... now just take the argument to its logical
conclusion.

Given the relative ease with which you can get warrants nowadays, I wonder if you realize how paper thin the protection that most people ask for truly is.

It's rather like going naked downtown, with a wet piece of tissue paper over your privates.

I have a bridge to sell you....in death valley.

Who would want to drive ground level on any 'ol desert anyway? MUCH better to do it from... damn I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. :p

This really is quite disgusting but not real surprising. It is as if each new outrage is a brand new surprise. People are actually still shocked by this stuff?

Given the relative ease with which you can get warrants nowadays, I wonder if you realize how paper thin the protection that most people ask for truly is.

It's rather like going naked downtown, with a wet piece of tissue paper over your privates.

So what's your point?

That the legal protections that are weak and easily gotten through
are still too much for an administration to be expected to deal with
so let's do away with them all?

So what's your point?

That the legal protections that are weak and easily gotten through
are still too much for an administration to be expected to deal with
so let's do away with them all?

Nope. I'm just saying that you haven't noticed that the erosion has been taking place for some time, under all administrations, and it isn't until Bush does something that people get upset.

I'm saying you're a little too late.

A signing statement is merely an expression of intent - saying how the executive will look upon, interpret, and enforce the provisions of the law.

You're lucky he's coming right out and making a statement - he's under no such obligation to do so. Like previous administrations, he could keep it all a secret that he would never be under any obligation to divulge.

no, he didn't, I did to show that KB was referring to the policies that Pres Bush signed. Nazz's statement makes it sound like he belives President Bush wrote out the constitution if the thread of the conversation was followed.

But if Nazz wants everyone to think that He/She thinks that President Bush created the Constitution... *shrugs*

Oh, give me a big fat hairy break.

Nope. I'm just saying that you haven't noticed that the erosion has been taking place for some time, under all administrations, and it isn't until Bush does something that people get upset.

I'm saying you're a little too late.

A signing statement is merely an expression of intent - saying how the executive will look upon, interpret, and enforce the provisions of the law.

You're lucky he's coming right out and making a statement - he's under no such obligation to do so. Like previous administrations, he could keep it all a secret that he would never be under any obligation to divulge.

You are right there has been erosion of protections.
But you are wrong in your interpretation that Bush is merely a continuance.
The Bush administration is claiming all kinds of powers as their own,
as opposed to government in general, not the senate not the congress just the office of the president, el presidente as it were,
they are effectively undermining the US system of democracy, not to mention justice etc. and the signing statements as I said before are purely attempted tail covering in case the american people do wake up to the dangers.

I am a conservative and a neoconservative and a warhawk. Yet I am deeply troubled by George Bush. I support the war 100% but nothing else that this creep is all about.

My feelings on this matter are justified. Not only is our president an idiot, he bumbling idiot and is becoming no better than a peeping tom. He is taking away the people's freedoms and as much everyone talks about it they don't do anything about it, or maybe they can't. It's very sad that with what the president is doing, idiocy-wise, he's coming to make himself into a genius. It's insanity. He's getting through hoop after hoop on his sheer lack of intelligence, but oddly, it's that lack of intelligence which is allowing him to become somewhat of a mastermind.

I hate to say it, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

What troubles me most is this BS that came from the White House saying "Despite the President putting that in there, it won't change our policy."

That either means they were already doing it, or that they say they won't they just want the power (like they won't use it. yeah right.)

This reminds me of the project they were pushing a couple years ago to build a national database that would track every single person, including things you buy, places you go, books you check out, etc. The defense:

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

That sends a chill down my spine.

And the liberal media is, of course, all over this one (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html) (by which I mean it was only the NY Daily News and only two weeks after it happened).

What's it going to take for Americans to rise up en masse against this signing statement bullshit? President Hillary? What? Tell me, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.

you do realize that with that power, he has about a million miles of beuroctatic red tape to go through first, dont you? There has to be a credible reason to open the mail, so he cant just go and open up the thank you letters i wrote to my grandparents. the mail exchange has to be from a suspected enemy combatant to another. Just like the phones. And what can the american people do, you forget that we have no real power outside of what congress does for us. We can protest our asses off, but unless congress does something, its out of the citizens hands. Thats representative democracy, folks.

Oh, give me a big fat hairy break.

*shrug*

whatever :rolleyes:

Anthrax in the mail should do it. Let's see them open that letter.

"I'm all for putting anthrax in junk mail."
- Malcolm McDowell on Politically Incorrect

Basically once we have a Democratic President doing the same thing, then the Right will start bitching about it. Or even better, a Democratic Muslim President.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
That's what we call "taking the piss" in Ireland.

I hate to say it, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
Don't like Bush now? You're in the perfect location to blow some shit up!

I am not serious.

I support the war 100%
:rolleyes:

ya know Nazz... I find that when you can't refute my arguments, you tend to pull out the "oh, you're flaming me and you are a Forum Firefighter" line. especially when you are the only one with the flame throwing.

If you can point out a case of me throwing any flames in this thread, then by all means, either point them out or report me to Moderation. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you knock off what I consider to be libelous statements.

By the way, I don't believe I accused you of flaming me--only of taking me out of context, which you most certainly did.

I am a conservative and a neoconservative and a warhawk. Yet I am deeply troubled by George Bush. I support the war 100% but nothing else that this creep is all about.

A neoconservative and a warhawk who doesn't support Bush? I thought Bush was the living embodiment of the neconservatives and warhawks.

A neoconservative and a warhawk who doesn't support Bush? I thought Bush was the living embodiment of the neconservatives and warhawks.

They can't distance themselves from Bush fast enough--he's made them look stupid.

Given the relative ease with which you can get warrants nowadays, I wonder if you realize how paper thin the protection that most people ask for truly is.

It's rather like going naked downtown, with a wet piece of tissue paper over your privates.

A good point !
The warrant is part of a paper trail that can be used to later investigate innapropriate searches. Without it, there'd be no obligation to keep records of searches or to yield them up to a suitable empowered Senate inquiry -- they'd simply burn everything and deny they ever read that mail.

Paper thin, yes. Better than nothing I say. And it's a question of scale. Suppose I want to install an x-ray machine* in every mail-sorting centre and permanently archive a shot of every piece of mail (and if I were a spook, that's exactly what I'd want, to match the coverage I've already got of email communication) ... those paper-thin warrants add up to an impenetrable wall of paper.

*Quibble about the tech if you must. But clearly it's a lot easier to record the contents of mail than actually opening and reading each piece.

Don't like Bush now? You're in the perfect location to blow some shit up!

<COLOR="White">I am not serious.</COLOR>


I found this funny, but a smilie would have put it beyond doubt.

You are right there has been erosion of protections.
But you are wrong in your interpretation that Bush is merely a continuance.
The Bush administration is claiming all kinds of powers as their own,
as opposed to government in general, not the senate not the congress just the office of the president, el presidente as it were,
they are effectively undermining the US system of democracy, not to mention justice etc. and the signing statements as I said before are purely attempted tail covering in case the american people do wake up to the dangers.


I dont kno y evry1 hates the Republicans...especially those wit religious views. Yeah Bush is not a great Prez..but Gore or Kerry would have been worse...Kerry wanted just pull out the troops of Iraq...you dont hear about the troops who are proud, just the ones with no life so they go complain...and dont even get me started on the 3000 troop thing...cuz i support our troops so much but yall dont realize that millions of ppl (just soldiers) died in like WW2 and shit 3000 aint that much..

anyway 4 me i support bush cuz his admin. supports lebanon fighting hezbollah so... yea

as always...bhibbak ya lubnan and shokran...

ALLAH MAAEK

A good point !
The warrant is part of a paper trail that can be used to later investigate innapropriate searches. Without it, there'd be no obligation to keep records of searches or to yield them up to a suitable empowered Senate inquiry -- they'd simply burn everything and deny they ever read that mail.

Paper thin, yes. Better than nothing I say. And it's a question of scale. Suppose I want to install an x-ray machine* in every mail-sorting centre and permanently archive a shot of every piece of mail (and if I were a spook, that's exactly what I'd want, to match the coverage I've already got of email communication) ... those paper-thin warrants add up to an impenetrable wall of paper.

*Quibble about the tech if you must. But clearly it's a lot easier to record the contents of mail than actually opening and reading each piece.
To further the point-

It's about accountability. It's always, all these things have been about accountability and the Bush administration has been about nothing but avoiding accountability.

Look, these protections where put in place so long ago not in case they might get abused, but because they can, will, and have been abused. These are human institutions with human agents and accountability is what keeps them honest.

If you for some retarded reason trust the Bush administration, ask yourself if you will have as much trust for the Hilary administration, or whatever other 'nightmare' administration in the future that will inherit these powers. Or the unseen agents or whoever has access to these powers.

Without accountability, with out the paper trail and due process etc, it's not just those who have done wrong who have to worry because it can be turned on whoever, political enemies for example, without accountability. It's a reason to be concerned no matter what primary you vote in.

I dont kno y evry1 hates the Republicans...especially those wit religious views. Yeah Bush is not a great Prez..but Gore or Kerry would have been worse...Kerry wanted just pull out the troops of Iraq...you dont hear about the troops who are proud, just the ones with no life so they go complain...and dont even get me started on the 3000 troop thing...cuz i support our troops so much but yall dont realize that millions of ppl (just soldiers) died in like WW2 and shit 3000 aint that much..

anyway 4 me i support bush cuz his admin. supports lebanon fighting hezbollah so... yea

as always...bhibbak ya lubnan and shokran...

ALLAH MAAEK

You need a gun smiley in your post.

You need a gun smiley in your post.

Three of them at least, plus a couple of finger smileys as well.

By the way, which gun smiley do you find to be the more juvenile--the :mp5: or the :sniper: ?

I dont kno y evry1 hates the Republicans...especially those wit religious views. Yeah Bush is not a great Prez..but Gore or Kerry would have been worse...Kerry wanted just pull out the troops of Iraq...you dont hear about the troops who are proud, just the ones with no life so they go complain...and dont even get me started on the 3000 troop thing...cuz i support our troops so much but yall dont realize that millions of ppl (just soldiers) died in like WW2 and shit 3000 aint that much..

anyway 4 me i support bush cuz his admin. supports lebanon fighting hezbollah so... yea

as always...bhibbak ya lubnan and shokran...

ALLAH MAAEK

Best post evar :D

Three of them at least, plus a couple of finger smileys as well.

By the way, which gun smiley do you find to be the more juvenile--the :mp5: or the :sniper: ?

It's so hard to chose, really. They're both damn annoying. The mp5 one is more hostile, I think, but the sniper one carries with it the implication that the user thinks of himself (because, who are we going to kid, it's dudes who use them) as a 'professional' um..forum sniper? I guess. You know what I'm talking about, those kids who would read gun books and wear camo pants in high school and talk to you about 'tactics' like it was something he actually did?

Three of them at least, plus a couple of finger smileys as well.

By the way, which gun smiley do you find to be the more juvenile--the :mp5: or the :sniper: ?

Actually, it's this one :gundge: that gets me every time. (Yah, I know, not technically a gun smiley. But it has its place in the n00b posting pantheon).

Actually, it's this one :gundge: that gets me every time. (Yah, I know, not technically a gun smiley. But it has its place in the n00b posting pantheon).I have to admit, I have no clue what that smiley is supposed to represent. I suppose it's further proof of my old-fartness.