Permit me to laugh at David Swanson

[joshcryer]

173. Signing statements aren't law, Swanson is correct, and Swanson...

...by saying, "he rewrote the law as he signed it" was not referring to the signing statement.

Obama can arbitrarily enforce the law how he sees fit, and so can all future Presidents. On that Swanson (and I say this with little admiration for the man), is correct.

Whether there is a case that Obama would actually do that or that future Presidents will do that is up for debate.

But Presidents aren't known for rejecting power when they have it. For example, Obama took targeted killing to a level never before conceived, not even by Bush.

I personally don't think Obama will go back on his signing statement, at least until he gets reelected (so you have 11 months or so of assurance). But I'm not convinced he won't back off on it, unless the legislation is rendered moot by a Democratic Congress (and I don't think he'd veto such legislation).

Note: The Habeas Corpus precedence has very little bearing because it would have to be retried on this new legislation. While one could say that a future case based on an authoritarian reading of the legislation is possible, it would not occur until the damage has been done to one or more individuals, which is not particularly comforting.