IV. Preparation and Principle

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
.
.... If serious interest is taken in this concept, it should begin by thoroughly reviewing this paperwork, including any comments that readers might add. Feasibility studies would be needed to add detail, depth and statistics to the concept.
.
.... Most of the features needed for this study could be achieved through existing technology. Software would need to be written but it is easily within the reach of today’s capabilities. Equipment costs and the floor plans at Capitol Hill could be easily obtained for estimating networking needs. The expense for creating a provider network (Ginny) could also be estimated based on existing data, but it would require verifiable registration criteria as well, possibly tied to voter registration.
.
.... With the availability of the data described, and the limited need for research, a fairly comprehensive study could be completed by experts at a low cost in a relatively short time. A realistic plan could then be constructed and a budget devised based on the results of that study. Only the modern political considerations remain.

.
.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND
.
.... Line-Item Legislation does not exist anywhere in the United States today. It is a new idea, though derived from concepts that our founding fathers might have envisioned had computer power been available in their day (as this study will show).
.
.... Instead, forty-three of our states now enjoy the Line-Item Veto, which has proven to be a prudent measure. It has helps define the governor’s political positions and helps to cut state spending. It has been so successful that there has long been popular support for the Federal government to adopt it as well, though this would require a Constitutional Amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to approve the measure and three-fourths of the State Legislatures to ratify it. The scope of this requirement has produced both a bottleneck and a conflict of interest, which have so far combined to nullify the initiative:

The bottleneck. While a majority in Congress have sometimes supported a Line Item Veto, it has never been a two-thirds majority. There has never been enough support to meet the criteria needed.
.
The conflict of interest. Currently, legislators can pack bills with favors to lobbyists, earmarks or pork barrel spending items that translate into a great deal of political power for themselves, especially if they happen to chair a committee. But if the Line-Item Veto was adopted, they would be stripped of some of this power.

.... Who, then, must propose a Constitutional Amendment but these Legislators? And who would they strip of power but themselves? And the power they lost would be unwisely shifted toward the Executive Branch, instead.
.
.... This brings us to the bottom line. While a majority of support for the Line-Item veto can sometimes be reached, it will never be enough for a Constitutional Amendment. It will be a long time before the Line-Item Veto goes anywhere, Federally speaking. But the case is much different if we consider its counterpart, Line-Item Legislation.
.
.
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES IN THE CONSTITUTION
.
.... In the Constitution, Line-Item Legislation would be covered under the rules for Congress (Article 1) rather than the rules for the President (Article 2). This is a crucial difference because Congress enjoys much greater flexibility in its legislative process. Article 1, Section 5, the 2nd clause simply reads: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
.
.... So adopting Line-Item Legislation in Congress would require only a simple majority in each house. This approach would by-pass the need for an amendment and resolve the conflict of interest, discussed above, without shifting power toward the Executive branch. Even when the 'Executive option' is used under this legislation, it fits within the existing Constitutional framework of Article 2, and strikes a new balance of power through public accountability. As such, no change would be needed in the presidential rules or would occur within the balance of power at all.
.
.... This makes Line-Item Legislation an effective and obtainable goal, and if a problem should arise at a later time it could be just as easy to modify and correct it.


To Proceed to the Section on Lobbying Congress, click here.