The Line item veto, LIV, may have been declared un-constutional but I wonder if there are 2 ways around it. . 1) Legislative action . . 1.1) Specific bill language -- Can the congress pass a budget bill that includes seperatibality language so that on the budget bill they authorize the president to veto any of the thousands of individual items. This would allow the president to effectively not spend the money without perhaps having the suprieme court declaring it un-constitutional. . . 1.2) The WSJ in its Sat editorial "Cured Pork" suggests that even without the Line Item Veto, it would be legal for the president to not spend the money if the 1974 Budget Act were repealed. ===== . 2) Supreme court decision Reguardless, we now have a new supreme court in town, and they might well argue that the Line Item Veto is NOW constitutional. Feel free to fill in your own set of reasons that Stare Decisus (pdf discussion) does not prevent the change in this ruling if the judges want to permit the LIV ===== Note: I am personally against this as it does permit more power in the hands of the president and even more allows to president to reward the representatives he wishes to and punish those who are not in favor. Thus leading to even more Pay for Votes possibilities My solution is to have the federal tax rates adjusted for each state to compensate for the federal budget expenses in the state. Thus if a bridge to nowhere was build in a state, the state's residents would pay for it via increased taxes.

And so forth. It is the mark of a serious argument when specific counter-proposals are offered. If Dems can get there, I'd welcome it. ras, I am serious in asking you these questions: 1. Have you become an American citizen? 2. If not, why would you "welcome it"?