that I wish I had. This issue in particular (of the signing statements) raised so many red flags for me. This is far before business as usual. Initially it came to light with the torture issue - a blip in the news during the holidays when noone was paying attention. I try to follow the news closely - but missed the seriousness (per serious potential Constitutional Crisis) until the Globe article in March.
Oddly enough - I barely do a journal on DU - but I was so disturbed that I found the eloquence to write a post (and stick it to my journal) just when the admin began to run posts on their front page. Mine, on this topic - apparently got posted among the first - and suddenly had so many 'looks' that my journal (to which I barely write - and haven't for months) was among the 'most read' for months. All I can think is that since it was prominent on the front page of DU - that it was picked up by other web sites and linked to - which then accounted for the massive amounts of reads.
I tried to lay out - what you have clearly followed (thank you) and that sadly I do not have the time or resources to do - which is - that the statements in themselves do not mean much if they are not acted upon... doesn't mean much (which was the argument laid out during the Alito nomination - that the idea was it was th exec branch trying to leave a record that if the SC or other fed courts reviewed the law, that attention would be given (ideally, as the argument goes, to the intent of the legislators) to the interpretaton of the exec branch. If it was just a "footnote" for future legal reference - it is a sign of exec branch arogance (that they know better than the legislature - even though they signed the bill into law). If however the signing statement as acted upon in the administration of government (that is, by the department which was charged with administering the law) - such that the signing statement set the parameters for how to execute the law, rather than the law itself (esp if the parameters set by the signing statement was in opposition to the parameters of the law itself) - then it seems that a Constitutional Crisis - is at hand. A direct challenge to the legislative branch and its powers as set forth in the Constitution.
If your example is correct (at it appears to be) it is just one direct example of the Admin branch of govt acting extra-constitutionally. Dead on serious to the future of our system.
I would love to read more - but will be off DU until late next weekend. If you post more in response - please also PM me with the link so I can find the discussion. There are many issues right now that are so serious to our future - and while this is one - it is harder to follow and less 'sexy' and 'outrageous', so in my belief it is underattended - even though it cuts straight to the heart of our Consitutional system - and it won't go away after Bush - if it isn't taken on head on. On this point, please keep in touch - and pass on any information that is related - even if I am not online or currently participating in discussions. Thank you in advance.
on edit: adding link to journal entry to which was referred:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salin/19