Rule o' Law

Except when it applies to the President. From the GAO:

We found that in 11 signing statements the President singled out 160 specific provisions from the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts. We examined 19 of these provisions to determine whether the agencies responsible for their execution carried out the provisions as written. Of these 19 provisions, 10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine. With regard to the use of signing statements by the federal courts, we found that they cite or refer to them infrequently and only in rare instances have relied on them as authoritative interpretations of the law.

Congress passes law and the President decides that it is wrong??!! WTF??? Oh, wait...

Four of the 12 categories we identified relate to the theory of the unitary executive. The signing statements themselves do not explain the unitary executive theory, but simply assert it as a basis for the President’s concern or objection to a number of different provisions. According to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the theory of the unitary executive is rooted in Article II of the Constitution and, specifically, in the vesting in the President of the executive power and the instruction that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Unitary Executive Theory - (n.) I'm a gonna do whatever I want.

The President also objects to certain provisions based on an asserted authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged. These provisions require an executive branch entity to provide Congress with information that the President believes could compromise the deliberative processes of the President or interfere with his general constitutional duties.

Four of the twelve categories relate to a function of the federal government in which the President asserts he has the primary constitutional role. The first of these categories contains provisions that could, according to the President, interfere with his constitutional role as Commander in Chief.

In a third category are provisions that, according to the signing statements, “purport to direct or burden the Executive’s conduct of foreign relations.” According to one signing statement, the Constitution commits to the President the primary responsibility for conducting the foreign relations of the United States.

Translation - these laws are getting in my way and they can shove it.

Someone needs to speak up and remind Bush that he is the president of a democracy, not a dictatorship.