I believe this was discussed by the Supreme Court in the past. Congress tried to give the President a line item veto, but the Supremes stated that they could not change it without a Constitutional Amendment.
If anyone remembers this please chime in. If they know different also chime in.
Been done. Unconstitutional.
Clinton v. City of New York, 1998.
Takes a Constitutional amendment.
Yes there is. Article I, Section 7: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it." Congress crafts the Bill. The president approves or vetoes what Congress sends him, not just part of it.
there was a virtual line item veto up until Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
mpoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York (whose facts predate the 1974 Act, but which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after its passage), closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president’s ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.[1]
Some related questions the purpose of which is to suggest some potential alternative strategies. The overall question is what flexibility does Trump have.
1. Does Trump have to spend the appropriations?
2. Can the appropriations be slow walked and spending delayed?
3. Is there leeway in requisite spending in the allocation?
a. Give less to sanctuary cities/states
b. Do not allocate to certain organizations
c. Call a group a name such as community center but have that group do something else. For example - say there is allocations for community centers and there is an organization of 100 people - 5 of which are administrative and 95 who are capable of being ICE agents or who can be used to support ICE administratively - which allows for more ICE agents in the field.
They amount to extortion.
Laws should be passed on merit not bribery.
Rider (legislation)
In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill.
Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its own bill. Occasionally, a controversial provision is attached to a bill not to be passed itself but to prevent the bill from being passed (in which case it is called a wrecking amendment or poison pill).
Who says the budget has to be a single bill? Why not let Congress divide the budget into segments and pass separate bills for different departments/projects? Either way, I’d count the funding of the wall in with national defense, since that is its purpose. And why not fine illegals to help cover their cost to us? Isn’t that a way to make Mexico pay for the wall?