Third postscript, March 27, 1993. We continue to discuss items that have come to the fore since the completion of the initial 63 RESPONSIBILITY papers on Independence Day 1992.

"WASHINGTON--The Senate showed Wednesday that an election campaign that centered so incessantly on 'change' has changed few minds about one of the most talked about reforms: the line-item veto. For the fifth straight time in the past four years, the issue went down to defeat in the Senate."

It was further stated: "But with each vote, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chief sponsor of the line-item-veto drive, the proposal gains support." .... "McCain said that even with five strikes, he is not out."

Additionally it was commented: "Among those who voted Wednesday against the line-item veto was Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz. DeConcini is 'adamantly opposed,' said his spokesman, .... . 'He believes it would be a serious breach of the checks and balances that was put into the Constitution by the Founders,' .... ."

Senator McCain is looking through rose-colored glasses. The Congress is not about, on its own, to giveup the MONEY and POWER of its present legislative practices and procedures, that would be eliminated or compromised by the proposed line-item veto.

Senator DeConcini places the constitutional-breach label on the wrong package, the wrong branch of the federal government. In fact, there would be little or no need for proposing a line-item veto (which would give the President the authority to strike individual items from spending bills), if the Congress would clean up its own act. Many of its appropriations (and some of its authorization) bills have elements or riders that are contrary to the general welfare.

The legislative practices and procedures that permit and encourage these (contrary to the general welfare) elements or riders are anti-democracy, counter-Constitution, and/or unconstitutional. Two prime examples are:

1. An emergency appropriations bill is prepared to accomplish one or more objectives. It is treated in committee by additions,or on the floor by amendments, as a Christmas tree. With little or no justification or debate, members of Congress are permitted to load it down with extraneous features (e.g.,"pork", special interest legislation) which would not have survived the normal legislative process, had they been exposed to the light of day, for the scrutiny of each member, before casting the vote for his state or district on the entire bill.

2. A bill is prepared in the Congress to fulfill a need that is known to be desired by the people, and to be supported by the President. The majority party, overtly and unabashedly, tacks on an extraneous measure which it knows the President would veto, if presented in a bill of its own. Their intent is to place the President between a rock and a hard place. The President (usually of the minority party) must forgo his constitutional veto power, and accept the entire bill; alternatively, he can veto the bill and bear the wrath of the voters, for killing or delaying the original measure that they dearly want.

Congress, by these practices and procedures, reverts to an "Articles of Confederation" government, consisting of a Congress without a separate (or with a greatly impaired) President. The checks and balances between the Congress and the President are circumvented. The Congress therewith abuses its responsibilities, to assure that the Senators and Representatives have the opportunity to cast their carefully considered votes, for their constituencies, on each and every measure, affecting the citizens and taxpayers of their districts and states. The Congress usurps and disables the power and responsibility of the President, to veto the measures of the Congress that are contrary to the general welfare.

The power of the President to disapprove (veto) bills passed by the Congress, as set forth in Article I Section 7 of the Constitution, need not be augmented with a line-item veto authority. We the People need only insist, that the Congress recognize and live up to its obligation, to see that its practices and procedures insure, that each member of Congress has the opportunity to fully consider, and separately vote on each element of each bill.

No more sneaky buried or rider "pork"; no more surreptitious special interest legislation; no more playing politics (Congress vs. President, Republican vs. Democratic party, conservative vs. liberal) instead of sticking to the merits of each bill; no more "gridlock".

There is no need to delay getting the ball rolling to chasten Congress in this regard. One or more states can invoke Article III Section 2 of the Constitution (re: "controversies between two or more States"). That is, request the Judiciary to judge that the citizens of one state have been unjustly and/or unconstitutionally treated, by the agents of another state, through the practices and procedures of the Congress, that denied the separate vote on "pork" for the one state, to be partially paid for by citizens of the other complaining state. This type suit can be brought directly to the Supreme Court.

It is urged that one or more Senators and Representatives, from one or more states, approach their Governors with the request to have the States' Attorney Generals bring suit against one or more states per the above paragraph. Since he has been the five times sponsor of the line-item-veto bill, Senator McCain would be the ideal leader of the pack. Like in Vietnam it would require him to put Country before self; self in this case involving political career, party position, influence in Congress, and the like.

Were the leader, by example, to cause an avalanche of suits from most (if not all) states, the Supreme Court could not hesitate to take quick action on this major reform endeavor. That could play an immediate and effective role in solving our deficit, national debt, and gridlock problems.