It really is THE question though. Who decides? We've had nullification problems before, because all possible means seem to invite chaos. Can the president nullify a law he thinks is unconstitutional? Then how about states? Jefferson felt they could as well. So how to operate as a Union if some states recognize a law other states nullify? Or if a president nullifies a law that all states recognize? etc. Seems to me America has settled on the SCOTUS being the final arbiter, Jefferson's admonition notwithstanding. Seems to me we fought a war over a lot of these issues as well.
That's not what is happening with these "signing statements".
But, within his term of office, he can choose not to execute a law or grant a pardon to anyone convicted of breaking a law (other than impeachment).
I gotta go along with you on this one. I view this signing statement thing as being at least questionable, constutionally speaking. Veto, I see in the Constitution, the other I have yet to find.
My question is, why is the President making such use of this thing? Veto the d--- bill and send it back to have Congress remove the offending portion. Does anyone seriously think that two-thirds of the GOP controlled house is going to override? If they did, I would have to question the veto.
IMHO the founders actually did intend for Congress to be the preeminent branch of government. It was Marshall who threw one menkey wrench into that plan. And may Presidents since, who have advanced the concept of the "imperial presidency". The executive branch has become too powerful, mostly because government has become so complicated, don't you know.
Conservatives, on a conservative website, would, I would hope, be more interested in Constitutional questions. There have been many such issues raised in recent times and arguments seem to be much more based on political party and/or religious grounds. All of these issues seem to have one commen denominator, they put conservatives at each other's throats.
WHY?