Presidential signing statements — those missives attached to bills endorsed by the chief executive — may be useful but they become counterproductive when they're abused, as they have been during the Bush presidency.

Such statements, appended to the acts of Congress as they're signed into law, have been used by many presidents as a means to assert their belief that certain provisions are unconstitutional or to lay out their interpretation of legal language that's vague.

That can be acceptable as long as it serves to add clarity to the intent and letter of the law. But President Bush often has used the statements to assert that he will disregard parts of the new laws he finds objectionable. For example, in his statement attached to an amendment to an appropriations bill — a provision banning cruel treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody — the president reserved the right to make exceptions to this ban as he sees fit. The more defensible practice in such cases would be to veto the measure on the basis of his objections, as is the president's right.

America's legal community has become concerned enough about this cynical approach to make a bold statement of its own. The American Bar Association, during its annual meeting last week in Honolulu, was right to condemn the current "misuse" of signing statements: It dangerously disrupts the executive-legislative balance of power.

An outright veto leaves the legislative branch with the opportunity to override the president, if enough support can be mustered.

It's a shame that presidential restraint could not have been applied and that now Congress may be forced to preserve its jurisdiction by setting limits on signing statements.

While they're at it, our lawmakers should consider policing themselves a little better. The increasing habit of merging unrelated proposals into a single bill — witness the recent minimum-wage and estate-tax debacle — is pure politics.

We have a right to expect more clarity of purpose from both our legislative and executive branches.