There is a simple reason that President Bush should stop issuing signing statements: They add an unnecessary and possibly dangerous level of confusion to legislation that must be applied by government bureaucrats, and often, interpreted by the courts.

Signing statements were in the news again recently when it was revealed that President Bush had added a statement to the postal reform bill saying the executive branch would interpret a section of the law to allow the government to open mail “in exigent circumstances.”

In response, Sen. Susan Collins, sponsor of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, introduced a resolution reaffirming that both federal law and the Constitution protect sealed domestic mail from being searched.

This highlights the confusion – if not outright legal conflict – that comes from signing statements, where the president adds his interpretation to a bill or declares that he views portions of it unconstitutional when he signs the legislation.

Signing statements were first used in the 19th century, but became more frequent beginning in the 1980s. President Reagan’s attorney general persuaded the publisher of the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News to include signing statements along with the bills they applied to so they would be considered as part of the legislative history by the judiciary.

President Reagan issued 276 signing statements in his two terms, a quarter of which questioned the constitutionality of the laws. President Clinton issued 391, with 27 percent raising constitutional objections. President Bush, as of last year, had issued 128, 86 percent of which contained constitutional challenges. His challenges also were often made by many sections of individual laws, raising to more than 700 his challenges or objections.

The Congressional Research Service, which reviewed the use of signing statements last year, found that courts had not given them much deference, but that the statements could affect how agencies interpret and apply laws accompanied by such statements.

This means the effects of such statements could linger long after President Bush is no longer in the White House. “Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t look like the legislation,” Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor, told the Boston Globe. Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even if they conflict with the intent of Congress and such policies will remain in effect when President Bush leaves office, Prof. Cooper said.

This doesn’t necessarily strengthen presidential power and leaves future politicians, bureaucrats and judges to unravel the confusion and ambiguity that results, often reaching different conclusions than the Bush administration intended.