Do "we, the people" have any recourse?

U.S. Constitution:
Article I, section 7

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.”

Article II, section 3

“…he [the President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

Article II, section 1

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he [the President] shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Presented with a bill from Congress, the President has two choices: sign it or veto it (sending it back to House whence it originated). Having signed the bill into law, the President is obligated to faithfully execute it. Before taking office he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution that spells out these duties and obligations.

Where do "signing statements" fit in?

Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act
By Charlie Savage
[Boston] Globe Staff / January 30, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Do we, the people have any recourse?

If W takes some of the appropriated $$ and builds permanent bases in Iraq, can we do anything to stop him?

There's some chance that at least one of the other three signed-away provisions could be challenged in court:

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

Some aggrieved whistle-blower, if fired or otherwise facing retaliation, could presumably get this issue brought before a court.

The other two signed-away provisions leave no clear legal recourse - no easily-imagined aggrieved party to bring suit:

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel "expeditiously" upon its request.

Who is there to bring suit if W demures at enforcing these provisions? The Congress? Does Congress have legal standing as a corporate person to sue the Executive?

The easiest solution would seem to run something like: Josephine Jacoby, a whistle-blower working for Parsons under a U.S. Government contract, brings suit against Parsons for illegal retaliation. The courts decide in her favor, and note in the opinion something to the effect that

"Presidential signing statements are extra-Constitutional and have no legal standing."

That would serve to moot all of W's signing statements, once and for all... and to place clear restrictions on all future Executives.

Is this plausible?

Stop the madness!