Executive Intent

Before George Bush signed a torture ban into law a couple weeks ago, he apparently issued a "signing statement" that offered up the executive branch equivalent of congressional intent. This document included the statement:

The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President ... as Commander in Chief," which "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President ... of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

In other words, George Bush can do whatever the hell George Bush wants and if he breaks the law he only needs to utter the magicly scary words "national security" and his hands are wiped clean by magical fairies.

Query: Josh, do you think that such statements of the chief executive's interpretation of a law written and passed by Congress does or should carry any weight when it comes to judicial interpretation of actions taken under that law?

By the way, in the 1980's Judge Samuel Alito made the case that such executive intent should be binding law. In 2005, Alito is nominated to the Supreme Court. Coincidence? Methinks, not.