Strict Constructionist, my sweet (bleep)!

Here's a good one:

The Associated Press - Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like.

At a news conference after his re-election, Bush said he wanted a line-item veto that "passed constitutional muster," explaining it would help him work with lawmakers "to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline."

...in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the law gave the president unconstitutional unilateral power to change laws enacted by Congress.

The line-item veto helps restrain excessive spending, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies."

Opponents said the law seriously eroded Congress' power over the purse and tilted the Constitution's system of checks and balances dangerously in favor of the executive branch.

It isn't enough that his party controls both Houses and most of the Judiciary already? Can't he trust DeLay and Hastert to cut stuff out in conference, like they have for the last four years? Maybe he feels need to be able to muscle individual Congresspeople himself, by threatening to veto their particular project? Considering that he hasn't ever used his veto power at all, it does seem a bit odd for him to be asking to have more.

Does he have ANY understanding of why we have three branches of government? Does Barbara have a report card somewhere that shows if George ever took a civics class? Do we actually have any record of someone explaining to him the distinction between "President" and "King"?

(And yes, I acknowledge that reasonable arguments can be made for such a veto, but George has no right to be asking for one. And it isn't really up to Congress to give away its powers, and any Justice who thought it wouldn't require a Constitutional Amendment certainly couldn't be called a strict constructionist.)