http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/19/signing.statements.ap/index.html
Sign the bill into law, or veto it. But don’t try to have it both ways by issuing signing statements that go directly against legislative intent and the substance of the bill, OK, Mr. President?
Will he ever stop?
Of course not. As your article notes, the practice dates back to the mid 19th century. It’s not something Bush created, and it’s not something that will end with his presidency. Bush’s actions in this matter may vary in degree from his predecessors, but they don’t vary in kind.
Besides, your really have only two choices here, since he’s going to do what he wants anyway. Isn’t it at least better that he gives us a heads up as to what he plans to do than that he just off and does it without telling anyone?
Sometimes he does the one, sometimes the other. So far, it does not seem to make much practical difference.
The Boston Globe, covering the same story, notes that according to the GAO report, federal agencies have disobeyed at least six laws Bush challenged via “signing statements,” deeming those laws “advisory” under the circumstances.