Constitutional legality of Presidential Signing Statements?

I know that presidents have used signing statements previous to Bush. But his use seems to be out of control. He has given permission to torture, created offices and appointments that ensure his administration gets final word on the info that is given to the country. And all of this seems to be done without any possible check from the other branches of government or the poeple.

Are these sorts of actions legal under the constitution?
Are signing statements, in general, constitutional?

I'm pretty sure that John Marshall wrote into a decision of the Supreme Court that the court would have power of Judicial Review and that was just accepted as a bargain during Jefferson Admin and not actually in the constitution as a power of the Court.
Are signing statements a power given to the president under the constitution or are they an assumed power of the Executive?

The American Bar Association conducted a study into Pres. Bush's use of signing statements.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/20...

At the time of this study, Pres. Bush had used over 800 such statements. Many, many more than any other president. If a president does not accept any provision of a bill, he is not supposed to sign it. He can't say what part he chooses to ignore. That is unconstitutional.

What a signing statement is:

It is the intrepretation of legislation, and the means as well as ends, of the execution of that legislation.

Congress passes a law, Bush places a signing statement stating that he believes it should be enforced a certain way. Congress has the power to in turn pass another law forcing Bush to enforce it a certain way. if congress does not, then congress consents to the presidents perspective.

And Clinton didn't do this? The President, as head of the Executive Branch of the Federal government runs that branch. He can create cabinent positions and other offices as he sees fit, sometime needing Senate approval. Also, authorizing torture? Come on, what exactly do you mean, Red Hot Chili Peppers, dogs barking, underwear on the head, female guards trying to seduce you, water boarding? We water board our military people in some training. It is authorized by Geneva, of which, technically since our enemies are not signatories to, are not eligible for its protections, but as the just nation we are we give it to them anyway. And do you seriously thing that all these techniques only took place during Bush, how naive. Because when I think of torture those videos from Saddam era Iraq pop into mind, showing amputations and a lot of other hellish treatment. Also, you need to expand on what exact offices and positions you mean, and proof that EVERY bit of info is filtered by him. And by statements do you mean executive orders, because that has been going on forever. Also lets not forget and President he is the supreme commander of the armed forces, so any executive orders pertaining to that, such as Clintons "don't ask, don't tell" executive order are permissible.

Actually not legal if unconstitutional and Bush has written way to many that are unconstitutional. Last time I check he was getting close to 1000.