What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
151 Comments
- skymt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+67@skyshock21: "I would love him more if he paid attention in history class. Presidents have had this authority since WW2."
Read your rights lately?
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States:
"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." - wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60He has the right with a WARRANT, now he is claiming it without a warrant...not only that, he is claiming it via a signing statement, which is not a legal way to ammend legislation because it puts legislative power into the hands of the executive branch.
There are these things called "checks and balances" that I seem to remember from history class, skyshock&awe...but maybe you were out sick that day. - bigbadbyte, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58I love Russ Feingold.
- evileyetmc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47Now if only congress made some progress on the wiretapping...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.
-- Benjamin Franklin - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@ skyshock21
No, a warrant isn't "a mere formality if the administration wishes to search through your mail" and "a meaningless document meant to cover their ass". A warrant is a piece of paper which states that the group, in this case the Executive Branch, has legal standing and a legal reason for doing something, in this case, opening mail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_%28law%29
2nd Paragraph on that page:
"Most often, the term warrant refers to a specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which commands an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits search or arrest without a warrant, unless there is probable cause."
President Bush is stating with his signing statement, which is NOT LAW, that the Executive Branch does not need probable cause to open mail. This, like stated many times in arguments to dispute your arguments, is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By the way, the Presidential Oath includes this (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Notice how the words "preserve", "protect", and "defend" are placed before the "Constitution of the United States". Bush's signing statement is, in theory anyway, a direct violation of this oath, which he himself has taken twice. - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26He needs to read our mail because we're all potential terrorists.. if we don't support him.
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@ skyshock21
All of our presidents have been only to look through mail only AFTER LEGALLY OBTAINING A WARRANT TO DO SO. Sorry for all the caps, but you don't seem to be understanding that one fact. President Bush, in a signing statement, basically said, "The Executive Branch of government does not need a warrant to search mail, assuming the branch is doing so to prevent the nation from its enemies." Assuming that Bush thinks that everyone is an enemy of the US, then he (and I mean the Executive Branch) can, by his signing statement, which is NOT LAW mind you, open people's mail at will. This is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution as stated by skymt.
Edit: This is the long-winded explanation of what wendelgee2 wrote, which wasn't up when I wrote this. - MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21He can start with the constitution. After all, its only a piece of paper.
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I myself am esctatic about Bush's speech tonight ! Even more than the MACSF Keynote! Tech gadgets are fun and all, but nothing makes me warm and fuzzy like watching the Great Houdini make all our Constitutional Amendments Vanish in thin air. Its magical!
- wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21you're right, warrants are just formalities...
formalities that happen to give the judicial branch some oversight of the executive branch. - rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I've read a similar quote from another era, comrade.
- southport, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Bush couldn't explain himself out of a paper bag.
- ComputerDudes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Russ is my senator. When I read the article and saw his name on the bottom I was so proud.
I would like to thank him for being the keeper of the BALLS for the senate.
He was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act. I think he was the only rep that read it first. - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"I'm not saying it's right to search through your mail, I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to hold Bush accountable" -skyshock21
So you admit that what Bush is doing is wrong but should not be held accountable because other presidents have done it at got away with their crime. So are saying that if I steal your wallet or car, I should not be held accountable because wallet and auto theft have been committed by others?
p.s. Wanting to hold Bush accountable for violating the Constitution he swore to uphold is "reaching for straws"? You got to be ***** kidding me! - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide"
Yeah, why not just put cameras in everyone's home, you know, to prevent crime. - nickels, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Is it Nov 08 yet? It can't get here fast enough
- Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Marked inaccurate. The letter called Bush honorable.
- prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I love the new congress, we will see how long this lasts.
- kingleroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14SIMPLE QUESTION:: When is this ***** gonna stop?
Seriously. - robofetus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@gabriel
You couldn't be more wrong. The only way to abate the swelling executive is to send a swift and decisive message that the people hold the ultimate authority.
Removing politicians from office is that recourse--it is the only one that has any verifiable value. It was always our right, and it is fast becoming our obligation, if we want our children to share the freedoms we have (and some that we had, and ought to have again). - diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15tonight at 9pmEST the prez speaks about it. can't wait to hear more about how my rights as an american citizen are being taken away. but it is for freedom, so i guess that is ok right?
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@skyshock
"I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to hold Bush accountable..."
That is why you fail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@skyshock21
Warrants are a be part of the checks and balances system. They're so easy to get even after that fact. Why then does the Executive branch need to be exempt?
Warrants prevent misuse of power; I don't trust any government not to abuse power they've been given (or in this case conjured out of thin air). A judge must decide if this snooping is needed, not the hunch of some guy sitting in the White House. - Hashim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The bill isn't the problem. The bill restates our right NOT to have our mail opened.
The problem is Bush's "signing statement" which contradicts what is written in the bill. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11We were attacked despite having safeguards in place. Stuff like this isn't going to prevent truly determined people from committing atrocities. All of this; the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, warrentless wiretapping, and now warrentless mail opening; have been attempts at expansion of federal power, particularly the executive branch, by eroding at people's liberties. The fact that they have a small chance at deterring (not stopping) a terrorist attack is secondary to their intended effect.
All governments want to increase their power. This government has figured out that it can use people's fear by evoking 9/11 endlessly to increase its power. For some reason we've let them. It's time to stop using that horrible event as an excuse for unchecked expansion of government. Your liberties are important; live free or die used to have meaning. - 3drage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This is the most absurd comment I've ever read. Just because I wipe my rear end, doesn't mean I want someone sniffing around my underwear to make sure.
- LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@skyshock21
The reason people are holding signing statements against Bush is: "By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. [5] As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws."
Compare that to:
"Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued ever."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It says in the Constitution that Congress has the ability to pass laws, and not the executive. So there's your justification for Congress passing laws.
It also says the judicial branch interprets the laws, not the executive branch.
A signing statement is either trying to write law or trying to indicate how the law will be interpreted. Either way, it's outside the scope of the executive branch. - shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out. - mysticmcj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Why are you so quick to surrender your liberties?
- UnixSkunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8 You know, I think its a shame, I was born and raised in the U.S. and I've always believed that the U.S. people would never be conquered by a foreign power. It is good to see I've been right up to this point.
Instead, we're being conquered by our own government. We are now subject to rules and laws that a government would normally levy against an occupied or conquered country.
One of my favorite authors once wrote, "There comes a time when Avoidance of risk becomes the surrender of Principle" I feel we are rapidly approaching that point in time. It seems as if the Constitution is under constant attack by the President. - shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The fact that skyshock21 is trying to pull information from FreeRepublic should indicate why he's on the losing end of this argument. Instead of reading your biased little websites, why don't you crack open a history book?
- seaqueue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9who knows, maybe the motion to censure POTUS for wiretapping will be resurrected. I was definitely disappointed in my other two reps when they didn't jump on the bandwagon with him
- 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'll correct you.
No person in america is above the law. Period. The law may not do something about it, but it doesn't mean they can't.
Generally, the courts can push the start of the trial out past the term of office, but it doesn't mean you can't get stuff rolling.
The reason they're jumping all over Bush on this one is he decided to say he'll go ahead, without oversight, and he's abused that trust before. Regaurdless of what anyone other President has done, he's the one in office when the people want it stopped. If it's his 'personal' policy, then, it's a problem with him. If it isn't, it's a policy that should be stopped, that he's actively supporting, not just ignoring, and it's a problem with him. - cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8...but now all of those laws are in place, and just waiting to be abused. No thanks.
- oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think the reasoning is pretty self explanatory: presidents are above the law. Duh.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9January 20th, 2009
- scratched, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I would actually love to hear Bush's explanation for this.
What send by mail could possibly be so urgent that you don't have the time and/or will power to get a warrant? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@neolarthytep
Whether this will affect you personally or not doesn't matter: I'm not affected personally by murder but I'm quite happy there's laws against it. - scratched, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@jdibiase
1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. ยง 233.11
If I understand that correctly, there already was a law about opening packages if they are bombs, but you probably didn't RTFA.
And the anthrax thing... The mail is not usually guaranteed to get anywhere at a specific time. I'm sure the USPS can hold a letter that potentially containts anthrax until a warrant is issued. It doesn't take long to get one if it is a serious matter. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@neolarthytep
Ah. But who defines what "terrorist snail mail" is? Those who are opening it? What if that innocent letter you received today is considered terrorist snail mail tomorrow? - CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7President Clinton signed a bill that was introduced in the House in December of 2006? I wasn't aware the powers of a former President included time travel. Try doing some research yourself.
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8So long as he's actually ousted; I hope there's no imminent threat that forces him to create *another* law that allows him to stay in office... via martial law, perhaps?
- DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Good Grief.
You guys are all missing the big picture here.
Our Beloved Constitution and its Bill of Rights has been used as toilet paper by every President since Lincon started doing it in 1860. Don't believe me?
Look up 10th Amendment and read it. Then consider everything that Lincon and his successors have done since.
If you want to take back power and give it back to the people, then vote in the Libertarians or anyone else who reads the Constitution the way it was actually written. - MadN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We now know the next Senator who will be on Bush's Anthrax mailing list......
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Gabe:
I agree that impeachment would not be useful. I would prefer to see Bush and Cheney publicly pardoned for their enumerated crimes. It strikes me as a far more fitting "***** you".
Nothing was changed by 9/11 except that half this nation turned into cowards crying for Daddy governemnt to keep them safe. Well guess what? Nothing is safe and it never has been. Man up. - hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@neolarthytep: I can't decide if you're a troll or a troglodyte .
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7GabrielS:
You're wrong. This is a situation brought about by the working of people within this country, not by Osama bin Laden.
All it will take is a reasonable person in office again, one who understands that no matter how much he wants to do something, sometimes the Constution prevents it or assigns the ability to do it to another branch of government. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Where did Bush get the idea that he is some kind of monarch? The man has some serious delusions about his office and the powers thereof. As one of my history teachers from way back when used to say, "History is cyclic." Bush is using the FUD generated from 6 years ago to gain more and more power. Of course, he says he's doing it for our "protection", but only a fool would believe that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is