A Question About Signing Statements (May seem silly but please indulge me)

[journalist3072]

I have what may seem like a silly question about these signing statements.

As we all know, Bushie is using these signing statements to basically say he feels he can disreguard whatever law it is that he just signed.

He's basically saying that if he feels a law might be against the constitution or go against certain constitutional principles, he feels he's not obliged to follow it.

Here's my question:

If he feels a particular law may violate certain aspects of the Constitution, why is he siging it into law in the first place?

Why not veto?

[silverweb]

1. Just for him.

He is explicitly and specifically saying that the law applies to everyone but him.

He is plainly stating that he believes he (the executive) is not bound by the law, no matter what the legislative and judicial branches of the government may say.

[journalist3072]

3. Exactly, right, but I'm still trying to get at the heart of my question

Yes, of course he's basically saying screw ya'll, I'm above the law.

BUT, he's defending his actions with the signing statements, by saying he has the righ to set aside any law which he believes conflicts with the Constitution (or his interpretation of the Constitution).

And so my question really is this: If he truly believes that a particular bill may be unconstitutional, then why he is signing it into law?

Why sign something into law, if you think it's unconstitutional?

If the United States Congress sends you a bill that you THINK might be unconstitutional, why not use your veto power and veto it? That's what I'm trying to get at.

[silverweb]

4. He knows it's not unconstitutional.

He knows damn well Congress is not often going to pass a law that is unconstitutional and the BS about his "interpretation" is just a smoke screen.

Only the first part of his signing statement refers to "his interpretation" of the Constitution. The other part, which we're not hearing much about, refers to his self exemption based on his opinion that the law interferes with his executive function.

In other words, if a law restricts or annoys his supreme highness in any way, he may just disregard it... but everyone else is still bound by it.

There's a very good article on the subject here:
http://www.dailycolonial.com/go.dc?p=3&s=2522

[flyingfysh]

2. there is a reason to avoid vetos

If he were to veto something, Congress can override a veto.

There is no Constitutional provision for "signing statements", and there is no way to "override" a signing statement.