The difference, of course, is that the next president is not obligated to uphold Bush's signing statements. I agree that he should be vetoing bills rather than stating his intention not to enforce them, but a) there's still the opportuniny for the Supreme Court to do a judicial review and b) because he doens't veto these bills, they will outlast his term. No president can override the system of checks and balances, knife. If a loophole that allowed presidents to rule over the other two branches of government actually existed it would have been exploited ages ago.
|