W the Constitutional Protector? (Nadelhoffer)

In yet another staggering example of how Orwellian the Bush administration's reasoning can be, it has now been suggested that the 750 signing statements used by W to "cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn't like" (R. Senator Arlen Specter)--are actually motivated by his concern for the constitution!  The details of this debate can be found here. Here is a particularly unbelievable excerpt:

Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the [signing] statements were "not an abuse of power." Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

So let me get this straight, the president who has done more than any other president in U.S. history to undermine the constitution is actually defending the constitution by ignoring the laws that Congress passes that do not suit his needs and goals?  Yet again the administration's doubleplusungood line of reasoning makes me unbellyfeel.  Indeed, it almost seems like they certainly must be joking when they say such outrageous things.  Orwell must be rolling over in his grave!