Centerfield

Although I fully support the line item veto I don't think it is a panacea... The Presidency is also a political office. Do we really see George Bush using the veto pen on Ted Stevens' pork barrel projects, or Bill Clinton doing the same to Robert Byrd? Uhhh... No. However, when you couple the line item veto with say, TERM LIMITS and/or a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, you reduce the likelihood of projects like this because permanent fixures like Stevens and Byrd will be non-existant. I know, I know, we have term limits, it's called an election, blah, blah. However, from Virginia, I don't get a say on whether or not Ted Stevens stays in office even though his actions in the Senate have an impact on my state, and my family. George Washington was right when he said, about the Presidency, that no man should wield that kind of power for over eight years. The same implies to Congress in my book.

For pork such as cited above, I'd like to see some attempt made to limit omnibus style bills where favors get tacked on that are unrelated to the main scope of the legislation. No more funding for museums attached to energy bills, no more farm subsidies attached to education bills, etc.

I'm also not convinced a line-item veto would help much on this matter either. I'd rather see some sort of citizen's pork council get a line-item veto.

This doesn't exactly fix it either, but here's an idea that I have thought would be kind of fun. Every congressional election cycle, say 4 senators and 50 reps are chosen at random and assigned to have their re-election districts SWAPPED. OK, Tom Delay, you have to get re-elected in Oregon, or you're out on you arse. Ted Kennedy? Get thee to Mississippi.

someone essplain to me why complain? Ted Stevens is in the majority party, and your President seemed fine with it when he signed it.
If you have a problem blame the people in charge.
Blame Ted Stevens, Hastert and Bush. Line item veto or not, those people should be held responsible right?

CBS news...
The Supreme Court Thursday struck down as unconstitutional the line-item veto law that let the president cancel specific items in tax and spending measures.

The line-item veto lets the president cancel specific items in tax-and-spending measures. The 6-3 decision says the law violates the part of the Constitution that requires every bill to be presented to the president for his approval or veto.

President Clinton was the first president to exercise a line-item veto, an authority sought by nearly every president this century as a tool to limit pork-barrel spending. Congress voted in 1996 to give the president such authority, and Mr. Clinton used the veto 82 times last year.

A federal judge ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in February, saying Congress could not delegate such authority to the president.

The line-item veto law is the only major provision of the 1994 House Republican "Contract with America" campaign manifesto that Mr. Clinton endorsed.

The law let the president sign a bill and within five days go back to reject specific spending items or tax breaks in it. Congress then could reinstate the item by passing a separate bill.

Opponents of the line-item veto argued that once a law is signed by the president, it can be changed only in the way prescribed by the Constitution for enacting a law - a congressional vote followed by the president's signature. Once the president has exercised a line-item veto, they contended, the final law would not be the same as the measure approved by Congress.

The Clinton administration contended a line-item veto would not actually repeal part of a law, but would be a presidential exercise of spending authority delegated by Congress.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the "profound importance" of the issue and almost reluctantly concluded that "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."

"If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.

If you'd seen the awesome new airport (the "Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport" natch) that federal money built in Anchorage, you'd understand how we need to spend another $1.5 mil. to keep the bus system from feeling inferior.

(I got family in Anchorage.)

LOL, Oberon--It's a size thing, like with Texans?

Tully;
Obviously you don't understand the fine traditions of the US Senate.