[Hardastarboard]

What idiots. A signing statement cannot amend a law. It is merely the president's statement as to his interpretation of the law. A court is perfectly free to consider this interpretation or just ignore it. The statement is essentially meaningless from a legal standpoint.

EXACTLY. I have cursing, screaming fits when I occasionally take a deep breath and submerge myself into the swamp at DU and they're whining and moaning about Bush subverting the law by his signing statements. Signing statements aren't worth the paper they're (not) written on. God what a bunch of drooling, babbling fools we're forced to tolerate as our countrymen.

[Sherman Logan]

I think a signing statement is entirely appropriate for a president to issue, although not a constitutional procedure. At least it lets everyone know how the president intends to enforce the law, at least until he’s overruled by a court.

I maybe don’t get quite as upset as you, but the idiocy involved in the misinterpretation of this issue and of the “unitary presidency” is just amazing. :)