These questions come from curiousity more than anything for me.

It has been debated that a line item Veto is probably un-Constitutional having once been struck down in court, is open for abuse, and most here cannot agree that its a positive measure and probably would not pass as an Amendment.
Yet, we all agree that Congress is abusive in attaching pork spending to bills that they know are important and in the Presidents interest not to veto. We are obviously tired of this blatant abuse of power, so:

Do you think we as a public could force the issue of Single Issue or 'Related Only' item Bills?
I mean, I dont think Congress would initiate this themselves, its shooting themselves in the foot, but could we Demand It, perhaps with a grassroots movement to force accountability? Especially as a solution, instead of a line item veto.
The President brought this to the forefront, why not take it one step further?

Is this a legislative issue alone or would it need an Amendment? Is it Constitutional?

My view of any rule requiring "single issue" bills is that the rule would be nearly impossible to enforce impartially, given that determining what is an is not a separate issue would be a purely subjective judgement. In some cases it would be pretty easy to tell (for example, Congress should probably not be passing a declaration of war and a subsidy for the local skating rink in Congressman Porkpacker's district in the same bill), but in many other cases it would be nothing but a matter of personal intuition. There are constantly bitter court battles in states that have these provisions in their constitutions. On top of which, sometimes compromise bills are necessary in order for things to move forward.

Another point that needs to be made is in regard to what you said about "public pressure" bringing this about. The only way the people can pressure Congress to reform its ways is for the people in each district to pressure their Congressman from that district. And as soon as any Congressman raises objections to pork-barrel politics generally, he's going to be under tremendous pressure not to try to procure pork for his own district, lest he appear hypocritical. So the question that the people in each district have to ask themselves is: Are they willing to risk forgoing their bacon for the sake of a long-term principle? If they are (and I know I'd have no problem at all voting for a Congressman who fights against pork, even if my district takes a hit financially), then that'd be great. But that's where the fight has to be.

Ultimately, any voter who's concerned about this has to start by looking at the real source of the problem. And that can be seen by staring orthogonally at any mirror.

This is probably enough to allow Congress to require only single issue bills to be passed; however, it would be best that a constitutional amendment was to be passed.

Something along the lines of this would work best.
"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

There are other ideas that might help reduce pork barrel spending, but those are a topic for a another debate.

Why would Congress do that? The reason bills are so convoluted currently is because Congress wants them that way. So, to think they're going to change anything on their own is, well, wishful.



This is the problem I have with this. What would prevent a so-called single item bill then stating its purpose would be, for example, 'funding of all social issues the government is concerned with'? In short, I like the idea of single item bills, but I don't see any way it could realistically be implemented. How exactly would you define 'single issue'? The above is too broad, but I can't think of any better wording, either.

It's actually the amendment process that needs to be addressed.

What happens is that these rider provisions are attached to bills which allocate funds for skating rinks or waterslides or whatever.

A popular quote (authorship in dispute or unknown):



This is unfolding before our eyes. The legislature cannot function without the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" pork barrel measures we all hate. It cannot function because this type of thing has come to be expected.

"You don't like my bill? What can I do to change your mind? I know, how about a rec center in downtown Porkersville? The people will love you!"

It is so pervasive that it is almost criminal. Porkers of the Year Neither party is innocent of this hypocrisy of decrying deficits on one hand and voting for pork and against spending cuts on the other.

Of course, pork is not the biggest problem. It totals less than $30 billion a year. In other words, less than 10% of the budget deficit. Spending in general should be cut by 5-10% across the board. Every department everywhere.

The growth of government makes me sick. Deficits are caused by spending, not by tax receipts. The whole government needs a prune job.

I have mostly thought of this quote as in use by voting into power -politicians who promise tax cuts. I realized long ago that Republicans had really wedged a considerable power play when they became the party that promised a rebate from the government for the vote. This is not some slur on my part, I thought it was very saavy marketing. Finances are the real reason most people vote one way or another these days.
I realized then that we had hit a turn in a working democracy and Democrats would have a hard time competing with this, ever.
I think the quote adresses more THAT issue than politicians voting themselves bridges and airports or annexes, this seems to be specific to Legislators and
voters have little to do with this sort of thing. Does anyone really vote for a Congressman because he got them a Waterpark or a Museum?
Yet, to be fair, many have voted for Democrats because of social programs and lack of caps on law suits etc. It seems you should vote the money not the principle now, or youre dead in the water if you are on the losing side. (If I am wrong about this please tell me so)

Does anyone know how it came about that 'other' issues could be attached to legislative bills? I mean was this always the practice since day one?
Did someone one day say, hey, this Bill of Law can include all sorts of other crap?
Lets have a hayday, its Constitutional!

30 billion may not seem like much until your kid goes without necessary books or extra curricular activities are closed down year after year.



Thats exactly what Im talking about. Mostly these Pork issues are not important, they are cake. Splendid looking but empty. So the issue is 'cake or death by taxes'. If we are real about smaller government, ( I am) and I think we have to start, we have to be more pragmatic when it comes to our own cake. Its not as if we are cutting real programs, we would be cutting much useless and luxury items, often idolotry to Congressmen.

I think single item, and I dont think it would be hard to examine related item- Bills is out of the question at all, in fact I think its a responsible reaction to a line item veto. Now, proposed to the public it would get huge support. Getting a Congressman to propose it would be like pulling teeth, but it may be an idea whos time has come.
I realize its idealistic, but as we get more exhausted with government corruption, and in my mind it seems we are always more-so answering to them than they to us, its something to keep in mind, and reasonably demand in the near future.
I realize that ethics and objectivity is in short supply these days, but I dont think these ideals are totally lost on us.

Do you think we as a public could force the issue of Single Issue or 'Related Only' item Bills?

Sure we could. But the proper method of doing this has to be addressed. As it was held as unconstitutional per constitutional instruction on how bills are to be handled, we will need to, and it certainly is a need, change our understanding of the word general welfare to not include specific welfare. Most of the domestic spending is in my mind unconstitutional to begin with, taxation without representation.

Is this a legislative issue alone or would it need an Amendment? Is it Constitutional?

It can be done either way. For the legislators to do it willingly, all they would have to do is to structure bills from single bills with riders to a multi-bill submission, requiring all expediters to be broken down in the submitted multi-bill as individual bills for the president to approve. The president would then have to approve either each bill separately or to blanket to multi-bill as approved. In this structure the Courts would have to hold this process as honoring the constitution.

Another issue here is the frauding of representation by stealthily including any word to a bill without the entire representative body being made aware of such legislation. It is illegal ethically if not criminally. This would remove earmarking under the table and stop all this stupidness. We are formed as a republic so as to avoid the failure of democracies in which the largess of the treasury should be protected. I would add to this that lobbyists are illegal if they contribute to the campaign funds of those they lobby. Let politicians get their funds from their electorates and not from any other source, especially none from businesses. Let lobbying be from persuasion, not bribery.

Do you think we as a public could force the issue of Single Issue or 'Related Only' item Bills?

The public could. We can try for anything! This one, I believe, would seem to have the best chance started as a grass roots initiative, because, it is power threatening to all others (I mean all four other so-called estates) except "We the People".

The public also should! It is a seemingly simple concept with a lot of issues and impacts that need open debate, study, and rumination. And, as above, it won't happen easily otherwise. (If not us then whom?)

Is this a legislative issue alone or would it need an Amendment? Is it Constitutional?

It can be done either way I think.

If it's an amendment, I'd like it to be a bit wider by adding an additional bill quality item that all have a "required statement" of the "purpose of the law" as well. And I mean the purpose to be a legally powerful statement, not an administrative, or informative statement of the law's content.

Then there would be a way to check inconstancies, impossibilities, and foolishness. (At one time one of the state legislatures made a law declaring the math contant "pi" be legally changed to 3, to simplify calculations.

The sleeper here that it would touch positively on the constituion's interpretation as "We the People" want it. Specifically then do all laws have to meet the purposes of the preamble, as I'd like, or is the preamble a toothless ignorable introduction, as many seem to want it to be.