Why veto when you can just ignore?

So anyway, there I was, minding my own business, not hurting anybody, when I read something mind bogglingly disturbing in the Boston Globe.... Did you know that President Bush has been in office longer than any president since Thomas Jefferson without having vetoed a single bill? By itself, this isn't that big a deal I suppose. Keep in mind, though, that when the President vetoes a bill it goes back to Congress so that they have the chance to override the veto by approving the bill with at least a 2/3 majority. Once they override the veto, the President is Constitutionally bound to enforce it in his role as the Chief Executive.

No, the fact that Bush never vetoes anything isn't what disturbs me to the core of my being. The thing that sends the little screaming heebie-jeebies running down my spine is the fact that Bush has been busy appending "signing statements" to many of the bills he has ostensibly approved (more than 750 in total, which represents about 1 in every 10 bills he has signed). And just what is a "signing statement" you may ask? Well, apparently it's a statement of Bush's own interpretation of the bill he is signing along with, in many cases, his indication that he has no intention to follow or enforce the bill since it violates his personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes, All Presidents take an oath to "uphold the Constitution". But the Constitution grants Congress the power to draft laws and clearly charges the President with the duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It doesn't say the President should enforce only those laws which he personally thinks are Constitutional. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Bush, however, apparently thinks that he alone should be the one to decide what is, or is not, "Constitutional", which is a clear violation of the separation of powers among the various branches of Government.

That's assuming he really thinks this, of course. Personally, I think he (or at least his advisors) knows full well that he does not have such power. But this argument gives him an excuse to ignore any law that he finds personally inconvenient. As long as he ignores the law on "constitutional grounds" it's OK, right?

Ah, it's good to be King President, isn't it?