Does it bother anyone outside the ACLU that the President gets to decide what part of a law he doesn’t like when he is signing the bill into law? It’s called a ‘signing statement’ and our so-called conservative President has issued more signing statements than ALL the previous presidents combined.
It’s kind of a ‘I’ll respect you in the morning’ with a finger crossed behind the back. Ooooookay, this law is now law because I just signed it but if I don’t feel like it I’m really not going to pay any attention to what I just signed. Doesn’t this bother true conservatives? Isn’t this an imbalance of power?
The latest case is the law that states (quite sensibly) that if the postal services believes a letter contains a bomb, they don’t have to call and ask for permission to ‘open/defuse’ the letter. Also the law allows the postal service to open a letter without an address so that the post office can attempt to ascertain where the letter is supposed to be sent.
NOTHING in the bill allows a first class letter to be opened (with the above exceptions) without a warrant. The President signed the bill, but he left a door open as wide as the security at our port system.
He claims that in ‘exigent circumstances’ that the government gets to by-pass the law. The signing statement gives a couple of examples of what exigent circumstances are, but doesn’t delineate or in any way limit the definition of ‘exigent’.
If the President thinks this is a necessary component of an anti-terrorism package, then he should have his party propose a bill that spells out what the government is allowed to do with first-class mail. Otherwise, the bill he signed is the bill he should live with.
I thought conservatives wanted to LIMIT the power of the government? Maybe I just don’t understand the rules of bizarro world.
Meanwhile, stay the hell out of my mail!