perhaps the Rapture-farians are correct

* nyt-ed:

"Most presidents used signing statements to get legal objections on the record for judges to consider in any court challenge. For Mr. Bush, they are far more: part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts. His signing statements have become notices to Congress that he simply does not intend to follow the law, especially any attempt to hold him accountable for his actions.
[]
The Bush administration often says the president is just trying to stop Congress from interfering with his ability to keep the nation safe, and that other presidents also included constitutional objections in their signing statements. That’s just smoke.
[]
... we fear that if Congress passes a bill, Mr. Bush will simply issue a new signing statement saying he also does not intend to follow it."

* polman:

"In other words, these pillars of the legal establishment are arguing that this particular president is potentially wreaking havoc with the Constitution, and that the only way to thwart him is for Congress to take drastic action that could put it on a collision course with the White House. I haven’t heard talk like this from the legal establishment since Richard Nixon's executive excesses during Watergate."

* billmon:

"The AP is reporting the wasting of four U.N. observers under the headline: "Israel widens control of southern Lebanon"

And they don't even charge the Israelis for this stuff!!"

there's some crazy shit going on. perhaps the Rapture-farians are correct.