President Obama says he will use signing statements sparingly, to indicate if he thinks a portion of a bill is unconstitutional. Being a constitutional scholar, I'm sure he will have a great insight to that kind of question, but that is irrelevant.
Are signing statements constitutional themselves? It is not up to the president to determine if something is unconstitutional. That role belongs to the Supreme court.
But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intends to use signing statements himself if Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional. He pledged to use a modest approach when doing so, but said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.
Really? There is? Where in the constitution does it say so?
When Bush was doing this, people said it wasn't right, so why is Obama continuing the practice?
President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The second argument presented by the ABA against executive review is the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Found in Section 3 of Article 2, the clause states that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
The argument seems simple enough, Harrison said. If the clause clearly states that the president must take care that all laws be faithfully executed, how can he not execute a law Congress has passed?
"And the answer is, of course, that his obligation to take care that laws are faithfully executed extends only to valid laws," Harrison said. If the president believes a law is invalid, this is precisely the time for him to apply a signing statement.
that's complete bull*** ! It is the President's job to enforce the law as passed by Congress. It is NOT up to the president to determine constitutionality. That job belongs to the Supreme court ALONE! CHECKS AND BALANCES must be mainained!