Scholars say that many of Mr. Bush's most significant signing statements have been attached to national security and intelligence legislation and that he frequently uses them to assert that the administration regards requirements to turn over information as purely advisory.

For example, in signing the legislation that created the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush said that while the law established "new requirements for the executive branch to disclose sensitive information," he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to withhold information" for national security.

The legality of the statements hasn't been tested. But, there's little doubt how Judge Sam Alito views them:

Judge Alito, Mr. Kennedy pointed out, had in 1986, as a lawyer in the Reagan administration Justice Department, helped Edwin Meese III, then attorney general, develop a theory that signing statements could be used to advance the president's interpretation of legislation. Before then, the statements had largely been triumphal proclamations. Mr. Alito wrote at the time that the new signing statements would "increase the power of the executive to shape the law" even as they created resentment in Congress.

Sen. Kennedy got it right at Alito's confirmation hearing:

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.... told Judge Alito at the hearings that Mr. Bush had in essence stated that "whatever the law of the land might be, whatever Congress might have written, the executive branch has the right to authorize torture without fear of judicial review."

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]