For a balanced, sensible, right-on-target editorial on the subject of presidential signing statements, see this by NRO’s editors. Then go have a look at the Washington Post’s editorial today on the same subject. In every way but one, the Post is on the same side of the issue as NRO—holding that signing statements are traditional, useful tools of “transparent and open government,” endorsing their use to signal potential constitutional defects a president sees in the bills he signs, and saying that the increased frequency of such statements in recent administrations is “generally a good thing.” In fact, there’s practically nothing left of the 30-plus pages of the ABA’s task force report when the Post is through. So what is the one way in which the Post’s editors disagree with NRO? They just don’t like President Bush’s signing statements for what some of them say. Okay, so after admitting that signing statements “permit criticism and more vibrant debate,” they go on to criticize some of those Bush has issued. Fair enough. But they’ll have to do better than they do here. The one example they give is that when the McCain amendment was passed banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of detainees, Bush’s signing statement said he would execute the law “consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.” This the Post says was “apparently reserving for himself the power to override the prohibition.” There’s an awful lot of supposition buried in that adverb “apparently.” No such claim of a power to “override” the law is apparent on the face of Bush’s statement at all. It’s an old story. Even when the Post’s editors side with Bush against his critics, they can’t resist finding a way to bash him anyway. But it’s a sure sign that the president is winning the argument. I hope Arlen Specter is paying attention.