The Observation Deck

Hi,
Congress writes the laws and then Bush writes a signing statement (151 so far) to ignore the law and do as he pleases.

The latest example I saw was Congress banning permanent bases in Iraq and Bush declaring he can make such commitments.

See: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/29/signing-statement-iraq/

We have a President that has no respect for our Constitution. That is the document he swore he would uphold. Likewise, members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. And impeaching a President that does not follow our Constitution is not an option for Congress but an obligation. Thank You, Dennis for doing your job by starting this process. Now, carry it through.

[sarcasm]Why not? We have bases all over this planet, Germany, Italy, Japan, Guam, Greenland, Panama, The Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, UK, Uzbeistan and South Korea. [/sarcasm]

how does this action vary from any of those taken by previous administrations (yes, including Bill Clinton)?

While looking into this issue I came across this site...

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/01/alito-on-presidential-signing.html

Is this correct in suggesting that while a president can add any language he wants to the bill, it's up to the courts to decide actual validity?

So can you fill me in on how this goes against the Constitution?

Signing statements need to go the way of the Electoral College.

Gone.

The President already has the power to veto, which seems to be used a lot.

There are too many mechanisms being used to circumvent the congress, the senate and true democratic process.