I was unable to open the link to your question until last night. I was able to do a bit of research for you this afternoon. If you need additional information, please feel free to ask.
An analysis of the legal significance of presidential signing statements was addressed in a November 3, 1993, in a memorandum addressed to Bernard N. Nussbaum, Counsel to President (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm). According to this analysis, accepted uses of presidential signing statements include:
• Explaining the President's understanding of the effects of a bill and its compatibility with the Administration's views;
• Providing direction to Executive officials in the interpretation or administration of a statute; and
• Announcing the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation and those circumstances under which he will not execute the provisions of the statute.
In his testimony on October 28, 1999, before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Phillip J. Cooper, Gund Professor of Liberal Arts, Department of Political Science, University of Vermont, likens the practical function of the presidential signing statement to that of the executive order and identifies the general uses of presidential signing statements to include:
• Those for congratulatory acknowledgement,
• The president's disagreement with parts of the statute, and
• Direction to agency staff (available at
http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/coop1028.htm).
According to the Nussbaum memorandum, presidential signing statements have been used in recent history — with the elections of Presidents Ronald Reagan George Herbert Bush — to create legislative or executive history to be given consideration by the courts in interpreting the meaning of statutory language President (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm).
President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president, issuing at least 435 statements during his first term, and using the expression "unitary executive 95 times (available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html).
According to the unitary executive doctrine, all three branches of government have the power to interpret the Constitution. John Dean refers to Cooper in his assessment that Bush uses signing statements to nullify laws as they apply to the executive branch rather than veto them outright:
"By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law" (available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html).
Cooper states that obtaining judicial review of signing statements has been difficult for multiple reasons, including the refusal of the White House to participate in hearings over a number of administrations and the complex bodies of authorities produced by administrative law processes (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm). Article III of the Constitution also requires that there be a case or controversy for a legal challenge for any such litigation.
In essence, Presidential signing statements may not be used in lieu of a line-item veto; therefore, the bill is signed into law in its entirety. A signing statement allows the President to challenge provisions of a statute that he believes to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power and his unwillingness to enforce such a provision.
