OK, I had to do some research:
The Legal Significance Of Presidential Signing StatementsIt would appear that I am incorrect, that they do carry weight insofar as execution of a law is considered.
Also, from:
Bush could bypass new torture ban, some conflicting information:
"The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.""Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. "We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."Possible. That's the key here, and why I resented Hilmar's post. He implies that Bush intends to order the routine torture of prisoners. That is not, IMHO, what was intended by the signing statement.
Dan LeClair
www.cyberwombat.comSET RANT ON - The Wombat BlogLife isn’t a morality contest and purity makes a poor shield. - J. Peter MulhernDisclaimer: The comments made here are only my OPINIONS on various aspects of VFP, SQL Server, VS.NET, systems development, or life in general, and my OPINIONS should not be construed to be the authoritative word on any subject. No warranties or degrees of veracity are expressed or implied. Void where prohibited. Side effects may included dizziness, spontaneous combustion, or unexplainable cravings for dark beer. Wash with like colors only, serve immediately for best flavor.
