I have been wondering for some time why President Bush thinks it is OK to issue signing statements that supposedly let him ignore the laws that he just signed. Why he thinks it is OK to direct his agency heads to ignore laws that he doesn't like and to refuse to enforce ones that are on the books. Environmental laws, health and safety laws, public interest laws.... Why it is OK for him to ignore treaties that Congress has ratified and previous presidents have agreed to. The Geneva Convention, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, etc.
I have mulled over the Presidential Oath of office that each president takes on Inauguration Day: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution which describes the duties of the president says in part: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"
I have tried to reconcile President Bush's efforts to ignore and destroy the laws enacted by Congress and signed by him or by prior presidents with the Constitution. Today, I finally figured out the problem. President Bush is using the wrong definition of the word "execute."
The word "execute" means: carry out, perform, implement, effect, complete accomplish, finish. It also means: put to death, kill, have killed.
Based on his history as governor of Texas in which he executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern US history, it is clear that he knows only the second meaning of the word. So when he is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States, guess what! He does it. He has been faithfully executing the laws of the United States as fast as he can. Especially those that he disagrees with.
The Republican agenda is to kill government. What better way than to faithfully "execute" the laws!!