"Of the People . . .

By the people and For the people." How does that thought mesh with President Bush using signing statements to get around laws passed by Congress? Since we have a representative government, the representatives have the obligation to make laws and the president can either veto a law or sign it, (See Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution) where does this other option come from? How does it comply with the constitution?

The simple answer is that it doesn’t. Signing statements are the prerogative of a monarch. Prerogative is the "exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like." George W. Bush does not have that right, that prerogative! Therefore, George W. Bush is not enforcing the Constitution; therefore George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; therefore, since his oath of office included the phrase "so help me God,"he has violated a sacred oath to his God.

Perhaps a closer look at an example of his signing statements will shed some light on this principal of Constitutional authority. The signing statements used by Bush have been statements that he will construe the law from his perspective as Commander in Chief (My description, not his). A good example is the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill about torture. From the Boston Globe, January 4, 2006.,''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote. He added that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President. . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Interpretation of the Bush statement is dependent on a person’s political view. A Bush supporter might say he is looking after the welfare of the country. A Bush opposer might say he is redefining the role of Congress and inserting his own unjust authority. However you interpret it, he is, in actuality, not following the choices mandated by the Constitution to which he has sworn an oath to uphold. He has, in effect, given the office of the president the line item veto on laws.

Regardless of your support for or against signing statements, if you uphold and agree with the constitution, you also must agree that this is an invalid method of governing. If We the People want the president to have the same authority as a monarch, then we must pressure our representatives to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow such authority. Until that happens, George W. Bush is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.

But then, that wouldn't be government ". . . of the people, for the people and by the people." Would it?

That's as I see it . . .