King George IV
George Bush that is. Or at least that’s how he envisions himself apparently, thanks to the whisperings of his VP and others about his unlimited power as President. The latest example of this is in this story about a bill he just signed into law:
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.
Bush is still suffering from the delusion that his signing statement in some way makes law. It is dangerous, in that a presidential signing statement like this will likely reflect the way the justice department will interpret the law, and the way the executive branch in general will. However, in reality, it does nothing to change the actual law. Bush is not a king, not matter how much he and many of his supporters believe he is.
And of course, I love the mentioning once again of the ‘ticking bomb’ theory:
“In certain circumstances — such as with the proverbial ‘ticking bomb’ — the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches,” she said.
First, that’s baloney. The constitution absolutely does. You can, of course, argue that the courts have pulled all the teeth out of the fourth amendment (thanks to the drug war) and thus by interpretation you could get away with such things in spite of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, but that’s not the same thing.
That being said, this ‘ticking time bomb’ is the most contrived and absurd scenario. However, it worked very well for them on torture, and got their various lockstep toadies behind them on it. So why not trot it out again for warrantless searches? I mean, if the republican talking heads will let us inflict physical pain on someone on the basis of it, regardless of their guilt or innocence, then why wouldn’t they let us search their mail? Or their home? Or their person? I mean, what if they knew where a ticking time bomb was and wouldn’t tell us unless we read their mail without a warrant?
Come on. And, as Jim Henley has rightly pointed out, why is it that the state only uses this to justify things that the state has a desire to do anyway? I don’t hear them trotting this out to justify reducing taxes. Or to take power away from the government. What if a terrorist managed to gain physical access to the president and force him to do his will, and the only way to keep him from destroying the country was to limit the power of the executive branch?
Somehow, I don’t see that argument cropping up in any of the talk shows anytime soon.
