3 ms·
As far as I know, the prohibition on opening someone else's mail (or interfering with delivery of the mail generally) is not based on the addressee's constituti
by 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
As far as I know, the prohibition on opening someone else's mail (or interfering with delivery of the mail generally) is not based on the addressee's constitutional rights, but rather on an independent power granted to Congress by the Postal Clause. I assume there's some exemption to this for people in government custody, but I don't know exactly where it would be codified.
> The postal powers of Congress embrace all measures necessary to insure the safe and speedy transit and prompt delivery of the mails. And not only are the mails under the protection of the National Government, they are, in contemplation of the law, its property. [1]
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C7-2/ALDE_00000076/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C7-2/...
- sbaiddn 4y agoSure, but my point is that if the highest of rights - the constitutional ones - can be forfeited in jail, surely rights set in law can be lost or suspended.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y agoMy point is that it's not obvious that this question even reaches the scope of "rights". Even if one were to suppose that citizens have no constitutional rights whatsoever under any circumstances, that would not imply that any state or local government has any authority to interfere with the exercise of the federal postal power.