An interesting Constitutional dispute

I do agree that the President can say something about his personal feeling on the laws, but saying I may not enforce it? I don't think so.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," said Arlen Specter, a Republican whose Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the issue. "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview."

At the White House, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

I'm sure the President can say "I personally do not agree with this law," but it's a totally different story when he wrote he'll bypass it.

The bill-signing statements say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. Some 110 statements have challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

And the troubling part of this story is, I'm not sure this can be decided by the Courts, where it should go, since no one seems to have a standing on this issue.