The statistic alone should pique the curiosity of U.S. citizens: In his five and a half years as president, George W. Bush has issued more than 800 "signing statements." That's over 200 more than all of the previous administrations combined, over the past two centuries.

It has certainly been enough to raise a red flag for a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association, which recently concluded a study on presidential signing statements. The A.B.A. called Bush's use of presidential signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" and recommended that Congress enact legislation clarifying the issue.

A signing statement is an official document attached to new legislation, in which the president lays out his own interpretation of the new law.

Perhaps the most well-known of these signing statements came in the form of Bush - in his signing statement - backing off from the anti-torture legislation that had been a most controversial subject in Congress.

It's no secret that the current administration has pushed hard to extend the powers of the executive branch, and its preoccupation with the signing statements is consistent with that desire.

The war on terror has made that more politically viable as most Americans look to the commander in chief to keep America safe. However, allowing one of the three branches to seize greater power than the others would effectively destroy the checks and balances that have defined our republic since its beginning.

The effectiveness of the signing statements in achieving that goal is debatable, but it's enough that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, has suggested that lawmakers sue the president to establish the legal weight of signing statements.

The president's tough stance on combating terrorism is commendable, but perhaps a lesson in U.S. history is in order.

The framers of the Constitution designed a government that clearly assigned power to three branches, guaranteeing that the power of any branch could be checked by another.

It's a system that has served us well and one which leads to thought, strategy and debate in reaching decisions. That sharing of power is just as necessary today as it was in 1789. Perhaps more so.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay prisoners are unlawful - a big setback for the Bush administration.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Concentration of power puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid. It is imperative, then, that when military tribunals are established, full and proper authority exists for the Presidential directive."

It's a good example of the effectiveness of the three-pronged government. The judicial branch reminding the executive branch that it needs cooperation from the legislative branch.

Some believe that the signing statements may set the stage for asserting a legal position, or otherwise allow an administration to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the new law. Others scoff at that idea.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has said that the signing statements simply express the president's opinions about the legislation he is signing. But there are other, less tedious ways in expressing displeasure in new legislation, and the president uses them.

We would hope the White House staff is much too busy to waste time drafting hundreds of "meaningless" documents.

The sheer numbers of signing statements give the impression of a well thought-out strategy within the administration in its quest to extend executive power.

This president should not be allowed to set that precedent. Nor should any that follow.

Congress should pursue the recommendation from the A.B.A. and seek legislation that clarifies the legal ramifications of signing statements.