Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to "decline to spend" any item of spending contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional. What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the President to "cancel" an item of spending -- is technically different. But the technical difference does not relate to the technicalities of the Presentment Clause, which have been fully complied with[.] Clinton, 524 U.S. 417, 469 (1998)
Mitt is right. There is a way to have a line item veto that will pass constitutional muster.
Thanks for the cite. I’d never actually sat and read Scalia’s dissent before, and now that I’ve skimmed it, I’m starting to reconsider.