The world has changed since Sept. 11, 2001. The fear of terrorism has spawned major adjustments in the way we live and we're fighting deadly wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Maintaining this country's security and safeguarding American lives is a difficult task that involves fighting an enemy both stateless and faceless.

Yet we believe that our security can be ensured without abrogating the protections afforded to us by the Constitution.

Evidently, that's not the Bush Administration's view of things.

In a series of so-called "signing statements," the president has signalled his belief that the White House can do whatever it wants -- Constitution or no Constitution -- when it perceives a threat to national security. That includes the Administration's wiretapping of Americans' private phone conversations, which under law normally requires a warrant.

Now the president claims the right to open our mail in case of a national security threat.

Or, more precisely, under the muddy and inexact conditions of "exigent circumstances." This latest presidential hubris came in the most recent signing statement from Bush, which was attached to sweeping postal reform legislation sponsored by Maine Sen. Susan Collins.

The legislation itself did no such thing; it enshrines in law the same protections previously afforded all Americans to have their mail arrive unopened except under very narrow circumstances, such as when a belief exists that the letter or package contains a bomb.

Tony Snow, the president's spokesman, issued the predictable denial. He maintained the signing statement represented nothing the American public needed to get worried about: "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for -- in exigent circumstances -- for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new."

Wrong, says Sen. Collins, who should know, since she sponsored the law. The law doesn't allow the government to molest people's mail without a warrant.

Those warrants can be easily and quickly obtained through the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court system, which was set up precisely to sanction such requests based on national security. Thus, the question inevitably arises: Why a signing statement unless the president intends to ignore the legal means available to him?

Indeed, in about as public a rebuke as possible to a president from her own party, Collins will introduce a resolution in the senate that says "the Senate rejects any interpretation of the President's signing statement ... that in any way diminishes the privacy protections accorded sealed domestic mail under the Constitution and Federal laws and regulations."

We agree with Collins and hope the president realizes that when he's called on the carpet by a bill sponsor from his side of the aisle, something's terribly wrong.

If the administration wants to open mail, they're going to have to get a warrant just like anyone else in this country would. The president is no more above the law than any other American citizen.