What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We should allow line-item vetos and line-item voting.
Have each congressman and senator vote on each line item. This can be done quickly and efficiently using computer technology, where each member could check or uncheck whole sections or single lines from the bill.
As some might only be supporting parts because of how they work together with the whole after the house and senate vote for it once they should each get to vote again accepting or rejecting the entire bill during the second round.
Then it should go to the president who can exercise a line-item veto but where it still is not considered to have "passed", and then back to the houses which could vote to override the veto either partially or in whole. After an override bill goes through one round, then it should go through another round where it is either passed as a whole or defeated by both houses.
Then after that if anything is left that was vetoed by the president but not overridden each house should have the opportunity to vote up or down on whether to pass the bill at all. This is because people who voted for the bill might not have wanted to vote for it at all without certain
Yes, I believe line-item veto amendments are good. The ability to veto a part of a bill without veto the entire thing is a special executive power that some support and some disagree with. Personally, I believe that the line-item veto amendments are a positive thing because it keeps the executive checked and balanced with the rest of the government in which he/she is working. Without line-item veto amendments, an entire bill could receive the improper treatment.
A lot of times when congress is reworking bills, they try to sneak in a line in the last minutes. They do this because they know it would never become part of the law otherwise. The line-item veto is very important to have so the tax payer does not get robbed on something no one wanted, other than a congressman padding their wallets.
It is true that at this point in history the President is a hardline part of their party and a line item veto might just kill minority party earmarks, but ultimately, the ability to strike down parts of a law (especially the pork) would be a huge boon to the people.
Our government has three co-equal branches: The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Over the course of US history, the Executive Branch has steadily increased its power to the point where it now has the ability to more or less make and enforce many laws without the involvement of Congress (via executive orders and signing statements). The line-item veto is a nice idea in theory, because it allows the President to cull pork and irrelevant amendments from otherwise good legislation. However, it also would allow the President to fundamentally alter laws passed by Congress, because he would have absolute power over what portions of the law he would sign and what he would veto. Congress should not hand this much power to the President, but instead should stick to requiring that he sign or veto bills in their entirety.
I do not agree that line-item veto amendments are a good thing. I have trouble being in favor of a process where an individual in a role of power can pretty much ignore the votes of others even when they are the majority. I think such an amendment is troublesome.