It is a lot more complicated than that. I have never been comfortable with signing statements and doubt that they have an official status.
The judiciary decides what laws mean.
If Bush wanted to sign a law different than the one presented, he should have vetoed.
We conservatives who back original intent should not allow a president to bypass original intent through signing statements.
McVey
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.