when he discovered “unequal and unreasonable”rnduties on American products.rnIn contrast, the President has totalrndiscretion —rather than a dut’—underrnthe Line Item Veto Act. Finally, whenrnthe President suspended tariff exemp-rnHons, ”he was executing the policy thatrnCongress had embodied in the statute.”rnWith the line item veto, the President rejectsrnthe policy judgment of Congress.rnAs for the government’s impoundmentrnargument, the Court emphasizedrnthe “critical difference” that the LinernItem Veto Act “gives the President thernunilateral power to change the text of dulyrnenacted statutes.” With impoundment,rnthe expenditure is not repealed.rnPresident Clinton, taking time outrnfrom Democratic fundraising in Beijing,rndescribed the High Court’s decision asrn”a defeat for all Americans,” claimingrnthat the Line Item Veto Act “made itrnmuch easier to control spending.” RepublicanrnSenators John McCain andrnDan Coats chimed in, arguing that Clintonrnv. City of New York “means a retreatrnto the practice of loading up otherwisernnecessary legislation with pork-barrelrnspending.” In realitv’, the 82 items Clintonrncanceled in the past 18 months savedrnthe nation an estimated $335 million,rnwhich is chicken feed in light of our $5.4rntrillion national debt. Clearly, the linernitem veto merely made it easier for politiciansrnto bamboozle the voters by allowingrnincumbents to claim to be agents ofrnreform.rnNever ones to learn from their mistakes,rnthe Republicans have promised tornintroduce new legislation to circumventrnthe Supreme Court. The new bill willrnmost likely be a separate enrollment proposal.rnUnder separate eirrollment, whenrnan appropriations bill passes both houses,rnclerks divide the rmified bill intornthousands of separate bills for presentmentrnto the President. But this is also ofrnquestionable constitutionality sincernCongress votes only once for a mammothrnappropriations bill and does notrnseparately consider each of the smallerrnbills presented to the President.rnOf course, if Congress simply respectedrnthe ConsHtution, there would be nornbudget crisis and no need for a line itemrneto. Unfortunately, the Republicans’rndesire to revive the statutory line item vetornshows what little respect the rulingrnelite has for the nation’s fundamentalrnlaw. As Jushee Kennedy pointed out inrnhis concurring opinion: “Failure of politicalrnwill does not jusdf)’ unconstitutionalrnremedies.”rn-William J. Watkins, ]r.rnT H E G M STRIKE that occupied thernheadlines this summer may be a portentrnof things to come, as a new wave of corporaternconsolidations and trade agreementsrndestabilize the last of America’srngreat industries. Both UAW leaders andrnoutside observers compared the strike tornthe historic 1937 “Sit-Down Strike” thatrnestablished a symbiotic relationship betweenrnthe UAW and General Motors. Inrnexchange for a living wage for its members,rnthe UAW provided GM (and Fordrnand Chrysler) with a steady supply ofrntrained workers. But this 61-year relationshiprn—or “social contract,” as MichiganrnState Representative Greg Kaza (Republican-rnRochester Hills) calls it —isrnunder fire toda}’, as the Big Three, underrnthe pressure of NAFTA and GATT, attemptrnto restructure the automobile industry.rnWhile union leaders did attempt tornstop the passage of NAFTA in 1994,rnthey—and, more importantiy, the rankand-rnfile members—are onl}’ now beginningrnto recognize the changes thatrnglobal free trade has in store for the automobilernindustr’. While GM denies thatrnit intends to cut back or abandon itsrnAmerican operations, its 1997 AnnualrnReport offers a somewhat different story.rnInside the front cover, the report’s themernis splashed across three pages: “Go common.rnGo lean & fast. Go global. Gornfor growth. GM is going everywhere.”rnWell, perhaps not everywhere. The AnnualrnReport discusses new GM plants inrnChina (Vice President Gore, true to hisrncampaign donors, attended the groundbreakingrnceremony for the plant, whichrnwill begin production by the end of thisrnyear), Argentina, Brazil, Poland, andrnThailand. No new plants are plannedrnfor the United States. While PablornLopez Perez, a worker at GM’s truck assemblyrnplant in Silao, Mexico, says, “Irnlike to think there’s work enough for everyone,”rnis it any wonder that Americanrnworkers don’t trust GM when it arguesrnthat new factories in lower-wage countriesrndon’t pose a threat to their jobs?rnBetween 1995 and 1997, GM’s vehiclernproduction in the United States declinedrnby 129,000 units, while its combinedrnproduction in Canada andrnMexico rose by 161,000 units. That’srnwhy this strike had a different feel fromrnthose of the past. The Flint Journal notedrnthat “what appears to be at the backbonernof public support for the strikers isrnnot necessarily a pro-union sentiment,rnbut a legitimate fear of losing local jobsrnto foreign work forces and technologicalrnadvances, all in the name of becomingrnmore globally competitive.” And whilernthe Journal’s letter to the editor columnrnsaw its share of management charges andrnunion counter-charges, many of the letter-rnwriters, like Ray Lord of Fenton, putrnthe stiike in a broader context: “This historicrnstrike is about decent jobs, aboutrnwhere one can live and be a part of his orrnher grown children’s lives, and aboutrnwatching their grandchildren maturernand be able to work in the Flint area, ifrnthey choose. It is abovit loyal, courageousrnAmericans who want a piece ofrnthe pie for themselves and their families.”rnConservatives and libertarians simultaneouslyrndismiss unions as a relic of socialismrnand complain that union workersrnmake too much. There’s no doubtrnthat unions have hurt their own causernover the years by protecting deadbeatrnworkers or making demands that thernpublic (and not simply corporate management)rnfinds unreasonable. But autoworkersrntoday are solidly a part of thernmiddle class, and union workers (especiallyrnUAW members) formed the corernof the socially conservative “ReaganrnDemocrats.” Because of union intervention,rnmany autoworkers can supportrntheir families on a single income, keeprntheir children out of daycare, and live inrnthe same community that their parentsrnand grandparents did. Those who arguernthat “efficiency” and the “global marketplace”rnare more important than thesernconcerns show where their priorities lie.rn-Scott P. RichertrnT H E BOX-OFFICE FAILURE ofrnPrimary Colors and Bulworth, directed byrnMike Nichols and Warren Beatty respectively,rnhas prompted Hollywood executivesrnto view the future of the genre asrn”dicey,” or so says entertainment writerrnBernard Weinraub in the June 18 NeivrnYork Times. Mr. Weinraub seemedrnslightly shocked at this turn of events,rnsince the aforementioned cinematicrngems were “critically acclaimed” andrnhad “generated an extraordinary numberrnof magazine covers, television interviewsrnand newspaper stories.”rnBernard Weinraub had lifted himselfrngingerly up on his rhetorical tiptoes tornSEPTEMBER 1998/7rnrnrn