I'm not saying what is going on here rises to the level of Calhounism, but the contention is that the president's statements offer legal opinions that perhaps--perhaps--are dodgy attempts to nullify or discount certain portions of the bill. Let's not be naiive. It's conceivable that an administration's "legal opinion" could bend the truth a bit. It's a power play between the Congress and the executive. Could be just more liberal harping, or it could be the president is trying to have his way. It happens. Remember Iran/Contra? That was an administration subverting Congress to have its way. It happens.
"I'm not saying what is going on here rises to the level of Calhounism, but the contention is that the president's statements offer legal opinions that perhaps--perhaps--are dodgy attempts to nullify or discount certain portions of the bill. Let's not be naiive. It's conceivable that an administration's "legal opinion" could bend the truth a bit. It's a power play between the Congress and the executive. Could be just more liberal harping, or it could be the president is trying to have his way. It happens. Remember Iran/Contra? That was an administration subverting Congress to have its way. It happens."
I think you forgot to add one other possibility. The President could be making these signing statements because he really believes that part of the bill could be found unconstitutional.