Redux

Signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is how they are used and on what provisions of laws.

Signing statements have been used by many presidents in the past. But the fact remains that Bush used signing statements on specific provisions of legislation more than any president in history, in fact more than all past presidents combined.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

And he used signing statements like a line item veto, according to some legal authorities, which the Supreme Court had ruled was unconstitutional.

I would agree with the conclusion of one authority in the NY Times article:

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made.” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office

He might be testing the limits....more than I might think is appropriate because of the precedent set by Bush....but by no measure, has he reached the the Bush level.....yet. Will he push the envelope as far as Bush? IMO, you're jumping the gun a bit with another "gotcha" that is far from conclusive.

But putting that aside, the unilateral expansion of power that I was referring to were actions like the interpretation that a Congressional "Authorization of Use of Military Force" (AUMF) gave the president the same extended powers in "wartime" as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress specifically did not authorize. ...

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...and was kept secret from Congress...

...and actions like unilaterally reinterpreting US constitutional treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees -- authorizing enhanced interrogation (torture), extended use of extraordinary rendition to countries that torture their own citizens, CIA black prisons. (all of which Obama ended with an EO).

added:
I have said on more than one occasion that in regards to national security, I dont agree with all of Obama's actions...which in some respects, are "Bush lite"...probably where most of the country is. I would always like to see more of a tilt towards preserving constitutional rights and privacy protections.

I knew going in that Obama was more centrist than leftist on national security....but IMO, there is nothing to-date to suggest a repeat of the worst of Bush's abuses I noted above.