They do have official status, the nature of the job requires it. The purpose of the signing statement is not as a form of line item veto (though from Washington to Nixon, executives were able to embargo funds, and some used the signing statement to do so, a legislative act during watergate ended that), but the purpose has to do with how the executive carries out the bill or law and what he believes the bill means and says it means and how it is to be administered.
Ironically, the signing statement could be made moot without a single change in law.....simply make each bill more specific and narrower with less wiggle room and include how its supposed to be carried out...good luck there.
Bush (and to just as far an extent Reagan) used the signing statements in creative ways, but all above law.
Washington started the practise, and it has been used by all except for one president, just not in the large numbers its being used now, and ironically, Bush isn't even using it as large in scope as previous executives did.
However, as chief executive, it would be impossible, with current legislation, to never use the signing statement, unless congress gets smarter with its bill.
The signing statement is simple, congress makes the laws, the signing statement says how the president intends to carry it out, or in some cases, if he even can carry it out, or if he has concerns about the ability to carry it out.
I can't concur as to the signing statement being official. There is a process by which the Executive Branch's directives to its units to execute a law becomes part of administrative law. The issuance and recording of those directions is part of law.
The signing statements are not.
However, the idea that a president would say what his intention is is a good idea. Where I am drawing the line is over the question of whether the president can override the intent of the legislature through a signing statement.
Obviously, the Executive can, and always has, overriden the intent of the legislature through how it executes laws. The line I am drawing, therefore, is a narrow one, but it goes to the legal status of a signing statement.
I disagree. Clinton took the established administrative process of issuing executive orders to create laws. Bush is taking the established administrative process of issuing signing statements to nullify portions of laws he has just signed. Flip sides of the same coin. And both are usurpations of power.