Decius wrote:

After signing the legislation into law with no ceremony at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush issued an accompanying "signing statement" - the 8 p.m. e-mail message - that Democrats and some Republicans say asserted that he could ignore the law if he wished.

...Scholars say, Mr. Bush has greatly expanded the scope and character of the signing statement...

"The whole history of American government is one of trying to figure out what executive power actually is, so here is the president saying, 'Well, it's my job to tell you what that power is.'"

as an englishman i find this strange i had a quaint notion that legislation meant what the legislation says and when there is doubt then the courts decide. it doesn't matter what tony blair thinks or says the legislation means because it's not up to him it's up to parliament. In my country the law is made by parliament. I always thought u had a similar system which u adapted from ours. Now i'm led to believe your laws mean what your king sorry president say they mean. i thought u had rule of the people by the people for the people and had a revolution, a constitution and a bill of rights that upheld those values. Somebody should tell your king that certain dusty old documents he swore to uphold suggest his word isn't in fact law.
Funny you fight a war to oust a dictator then argue that your proclamations and dictats are law. How curious!

clearly someone in high office thinks i am the son of the ruler and now i am the ruler huh that means i must be a king.

is George W or George IV a Sith Lord as well by any chance

i'm reminded of the story of how you boil a frog alive. Everyone knows the story so why do you watch your hard earned liberties erode and wither on the vine. George W isn't too bad. Julius Caesar wasn't too bad and neither was Augustus. Liberties aren't there to protect us from Augustus but rather from Nero or Caligula. How can someone call themselves a Republican when they are not upholding the values of a republic, your Republic that said no to monarchy.

i thought your president could sign a bill or veto it not "explain it" or "frame it" or "set it in context". If he thinks it is badly worded or needs amending tough he's not a legislator. I thought your founding fathers decided to let the head of the executive branch accept or reject bills, all or nothing, not make law or amend law by proclamation.
Plus where do you draw the line "in the signing statement the President said the law meant such and such and in a speech to such and such an audience he said it meant such and such and over a glass of wine to a friend he said such and such" where is the law? where is the process? where is the deliberation? where is authority? "in a letter dated such and such the president said" how can that be law?
deliberation