Oh, Hooray. Another Non-binding Resolution to Stand Up to Bush

As you may recall, George W. Bush began reading your first-class mail over the holidays without a warrant, even though the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act expressly forbids such action:

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.

And even though the 4th Amendment to the Constitution clearly forbids such action:

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.

In reaction to George W. Bush’s unconstitutional and illegal action, seven Senators have introduced a resolution, S. Res. 22, that reads as follows:

RESOLUTION

Reaffirming the constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes.

Whereas all Americans depend on the United States Postal Service to transact business and communicate with friends and family;

Whereas postal customers have a constitutional right to expect that their sealed domestic mail will be protected against unreasonable searches;

Whereas the circumstances and procedures under which the Government may search sealed mail are well defined, including provisions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and generally require prior judicial approval;

Whereas the United States Postal Inspection Service has the authority to open and search a sealed envelope or package when there is immediate threat to life or limb or an immediate and substantial danger to property;

Whereas the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) expressly reaffirmed the right of postal customers to have access to a class of mail sealed against inspection;

Whereas the United States Postal Service affirmed January 4, 2007, that the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) does not grant Federal law enforcement officials any new authority to open domestic mail;

Whereas the signing statement on the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) issued by President Bush on December 20, 2006, raises questions about the President’s commitment to abide by these basic privacy protections; and

Whereas the Senate rejects any interpretation of the President’s signing statement on the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) that in any way diminishes the privacy protections accorded sealed domestic mail under the Constitution and Federal laws and regulations:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate reaffirms the constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail.

Why does this bill take the form of S. Res __ rather than S. __ ? Because it’s a resolution, not a standard bill. Senate resolutions are the Senate’s way of declaring something without doing anything. S. Res. 21, for instance, is a bill “recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York.” S. Res. 19 before that is a flowery statement honoring the life of Gerald Ford. S. Res. 23 declares February 5 through February 9, 2007 to be “National School Counseling Week”. You heard all about that, right? School Counselors everywhere flocked into the street for it.

S. Res. 22 introduces no binding action upon George W. Bush. There is nothing to enforce in it. It is simply a statement, the Senate’s way of standing there with its hands in its pockets to say, “I’m just saying…”

Why can’t the Senate pass a law to outlaw George W. Bush’s behavior of seizing and reading Americans’ mail without a warrant? Because it already has. Bush’s actions are currently against the law and the Constitution, and there’s not much a legislative body can do beyond that…

…no, nothing a legislative body can do to a President who is already flouting the law and Constitution, except…

…hmmm, what’s that thingy called? Imposition? No. Impishness? Impression Management? Impresarioment?

…Oh, it’s just on the tip of my tongue.

Impoundment?