Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But surely it doesn’t mean all laws. Just the ones he likes. That’s one of the perks of being The Decider.

Presidents back to Monroe have attached notes to the bills they signed—disputing, qualifying, refining. But the current occupant of the office has elevated the practice to an art. The Boston Globe reported that Bush “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.” That’s one in ten. His default reason: protection of the “unitary executive”—a nifty way of saying that his branch trumps. Rather than vetoing bills he dislikes and risking an override, Bush signs then simply exempts himself and his inner circle.

When Congress required the DOJ to say how the Patriot Act is being used to search homes and seize documents, the president decreed that he can order Justice to withhold any information he deems damaging. He’s also signed himself permission to waive the torture ban, stated that only the commander in chief can place constraints on the use of the military, and decided that an inspector general for U.S. activities in Iraq cannot disclose anything that would interfere with “national security or executive branch operations”—which, conveniently, can cover most anything.

Enter Walter Jones, the gutsy North Carolina congressman who went from christening “freedom fries” to being one of the war’s most outspoken opponents. (Jones just trounced a hawkish primary challenger by 19 points—in a district that houses three Marine bases.) He accepts that the presidential prerogative will continue—Clinton was actually more prolific than Bush, though with lower stakes. But he’s calling for an unprecedented level of transparency. His new bill, the Presidential Signing Statements Act, would

• require that copies of the signing statements be sent to Congress within 3 days
• require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register
• require executive staff to justify signing statements at the request of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee
• provide that no money be spent to implement any law accompanied by a signing statement if any provision of the act is violated

Seems pretty obvious—to anyone who isn’t a congressman. Jones has just begun to solicit cosponsors, but he faces an uphill climb. Republicans won’t be keen to rein Bush in, and Democrats have their eye on the prize, complete with all the trimmings.

And even if Jones overcomes those odds, wouldn’t the president just attach a signing statement declaring that the Signing Statements Act violates national security or affronts the unitary executive or is printed in ink that clashes with his tie?