[dirtboy]

President Bush is not saying, as President Nixon did say, that he will not follow a law duly passed by Congress. President Bush is only expressing his opinion about the law.

I don't often disagree with you, CB, but I do here. Bush is clearly stating that he has no intention of adhering to elements of a law that he has just signed when he issues the signing statements. He has a recourse under the Constitution - to veto the bill in question. It would be one thing if Bush actually had vetoed any bills, or was dealing with a bill that has been overridden. But he has shown no sign that he has exhausted the normal Constitutional recourses to objectionable legislation that he believes intrudes on his Constitutionally-enumeratd powers.

And one other thing - if he is going to make a defense of the Constitution over his enumerated powers, he also needs to adhere to the limits the Consitution places on his office and on the larger federal government. That has not happened.

[cake_crumb]

I don't often disagree with you...so I assume you just need to do some research on the history and use of signing statements, which have been in use for most of this country's existence, so that you are in possession of the facts.