Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to review President Bush's use of signing statements. Never mind that Bill Clinton used them as well (albeit it to a lesser degree), but apparently this has become a big deal now.
The Constitution requires that Congress can legislate and the President must sign the legislation for it to become law. Here Bush is signing the legislation, but refusing to abide by certain sections of it because he feels those parts are unconstitutional. Is that a problem?
Why would it be? Since when can't the President interpret the Constitution and decide if legislation runs contrary to it? And if he believes parts of the legislation are unconstitutional, why can't he refuse to execute them? If the courts decided those parts were unconstitutional, the President would not be allowed to execute those parts? So why can't he make the same decision as well?
Seems only fair.