Bush's use of "signing statements"

What does it mean to pass a law aimed at limiting an executive branch practice (such as a Torture ban) if the president says he can just ignore it? Is the president "above" the law?

But then again, if the 3 branches of government are supposed to be "equal" then congress should not be able to limit the President (If they could then congress would be "above" the President, not co-equal)

The whole idea of "equal branches" seems unworkable to me. In my opinion, Congress should be the "first" among equals. The Supreme Court is above Congress because they can strike down any law passes (but supposedly only if it clearly contradicts the constitution), but they can be cut out the loop if congress says they don't have jurisdiction.

The President is the most powerful brach mainly because he is one person and doesn't have to debate issues or work the middle ground. He or She does whatever they want.

Congress is the pass all laws, but is a large body and has to compromise a lot. It is also the most effected by "the people" in many ways.

I'm rambling.. here's the link
USNews.com: Inside Washington: Bar association task force urges Congress to push for judicial review of Bush signing statements