Those torturous "signing statements"

As some of you may know, our current POTUS has a knack for utilizing "signing statements" when he's compelled to sign bills into law that he's not necessarily down with. As they tell it on Wikipedia, "George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 constitutional challenges) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York."

In effect, GWB signs the bill but says quietly to himself, "No way am I gonna abide by THIS shiznit."

This article by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage explains some of the ramifications of these signing statements -- C. Savage has been the leading reporter on this very important and very underrated ongoing story.

Although the very nature of our democracy is imperiled by this dictatorial strategy, things never get too serious around here to have some fun with the whole shebang. Over to the estimable Tom Burka's "Opinions You Should Have", with the latest on the signing statement blues:

"Bush in Delicate Negotiations with Senators over Drafting of New Law He Will Completely Ignore

President Bush and the White House are involved in intense negotiations over the final shape of a bill that Bush will not follow once it becomes law.

"It is very important to the President that he and the Senate agree on the precise contents of the law he will not be obeying," said White House spokesman Tony Snow, explaining the President's particular interest in the negotations.

"There must be a real spirit of give and take, of true compromise, in fashioning what will soon be completely irrelevant to the White House," agreed Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and John Warner, the principal lawmakers demanding completely cosmetic and ultimately meaningless concessions from the faux-conciliatory Executive Branch.

President Bush and the White House had been adamant that the Senate pass a law that allows for an "expanded view" of what kind of interrogations are permissible under the Geneva Conventions, but, in the face of opposition from McCain and others, are now signalling that they may give up some of their specific demands just to get the law through Congress.

After that, the President will issue a "signing statement" reiterating his belief that laws are not binding upon him.

Some Senators insisted that the negotiations were important to maintain America's moral authority and credibility on human rights internationally. "At all costs, we must at least maintain the appearance that we have a real working system of checks and balances," said a senator who wished to remain anonymous because his statements are usually entirely absurd.

Cletis Fishkill, an inmate doing twenty to life in a prison in Fishkill, New York, expressed his admiration for President Bush.

"Damn," he said. "I gotta get me some of them signing statements.""