Should a constitutional amendment be enacted to give the President line-item veto power?

Good points, vizinertia.

Hmm.  I'm seeing continuing sparring on this issue, so I'd like to capture it somehow.  I like "Should the President have the line item veto?" best so far, though I agree with what Brian has to say, there.  Maybe just, "Should the line item veto be used?"  Eh, a bit too passive.

Interesting. 

But, should we narrow it down to "should the President" when it can be used by governors or Mayors as well?

I don't like the issue as framed. One response is that constitutionality is properly the province of the Supreme Court, and they ruled that the line-item veto, at least as embodied in the 1996 act, was unconstitutional. Now, there are arguments that can be made that it was the particular legislation that was flawed. As suggested by McCain back when, for example, Congress might frame a narrower law, "perhaps by requiring each spending item to be sent to the president as a separate bill." Or the Constitution might be amended. 

In terms of issues, however, I think it better to frame this in terms of the underlying proposal. Something like:

"Should the President have [or be given] the line item veto." 

If you think it important, then you would say yes, whatever it takes (narrowing the scope of legislation, Constitutional amendment). Or maybe it's all just posturing anyway, Romney appealing to the conservatives on an issue that he can't really do much about, but which wins him support just by advocating it, and which boxes Giuliani into a corner because he represented New York in challenging the law. So another reason to say "yes" might just be wishful thinking, or lamenting the limitation, but still advocating for the line item veto in principle.

As for where it goes, I hate flinging too many issues into "politics," just because they were/are raised in the political arena. I'd prefer Law, or, particularly if it stays as a Constitutional matter, Law/Constitution.

ABC News

McCain, who is in favor of the line item veto, said that it can be constitutional.

"I guarantee you, Bill, the line item veto should be and can be constitutional," McCain said, in an audio excerpt of the program released by the campaign which can be heard by clicking here. "It was written wrong, it’s not that the concept was wrong."

Good issue. Seems unconstitutional, but if PFs are debating it, then go for it.

I'd like to get something up on this.  Here's some background from wiki...

While this power is not supported by the United States Constitution, it was granted to the President of the Confederate States as the American Civil War broke out in 1861. Article 1, Section 7[1] of the Confederate States Constitution, adopted March 11, 1861, allowed the Confederate president the ability to "approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill," with such disapprovals returned to the houses of congress for reconsideration and potentially for override.

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [2] [3]

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Michigan debate:

[Romney:] I'm in favor of the line-item veto. I'd have never gone to the Supreme Court and said it's unconstitutional.

Mr. Matthews: Do you believe it is?

Mr. Romney: I do not believe the line item veto is properly structured. The president, just last year, introduced a line item veto that passes constitutional muster. Elizabeth Dole did the same thing. I'm in favor of the line item veto to make sure that the president is able to help get out pork and waste.

Washington is finally going to have to have a reduction in spending. Republicans got spending out of control.

Mr. Giuliani: You have to be honest people. And you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The line item veto is unconstitutional. You don't get to believe about it; the Supreme Court has ruled on it.

Had a heck of a time figuring out where to put this.  Maybe something above "Bush Administration" -- "Presidential Administrations," maybe, with Bush a sub-topic, Clinton a sub-topic, etc.

issue prior to revisions: