Every president wants it and many in Congress have been willing to give it them even if the courts have said it unfairly tips the balance of power toward the chief executive.

The last president to have the power was Bill Clinton, and the man who successfully sued to have it taken away now wants it for himself if he's elected president.

This popular presidential perk is the line-item veto, and it's becoming a hot topic among candidates in both parties in the 2008 campaign.

It gives presidents the ability to veto specific expenditures in larger appropriations bills already passed by Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that violates the Founding Fathers' intention that a president has two choices, sign or veto, and he can't nitpick items he likes and toss out those he doesn't.

George Washington set the standard: "From the nature of the Constitution, I must approve all the parts of a bill or reject it in toto."

While billed by supporters as a handy little surgical instrument for trimming fat from bloated spending bills, it can actually be a very dangerous tool.

The line-item veto could be used against Israel by presidents seeking to force policy changes by threatening to withhold aid. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush tried unsuccessfully to cut aid to pressure or punish Israel; it they'd had a line-item veto, it could have been very different and very damaging.

More vulnerable than aid to Israel would be domestic programs that are high on the Jewish community's agenda but opposed by conservatives. Measures that could have been the result of compromises worked out at the committee level might not be sustainable on their own if they required a separate up-or-down vote after the president had branded them budget busters.

In the first GOP presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani called for giving the next president the line-item veto. He hasn't always felt that way. After the Republican-led Congress gave that power to President Clinton, who used it in 1997 to strike Medicaid funds for New York City, then Mayor Giuliani took him to court. The line-item veto was declared an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.

In all, Clinton removed 82 items from 11 separate laws, infuriating many lawmakers who liked the concept in theory but not in practice.

It's not a partisan or ideological issue, not Right or Left, liberal or conservative. In 2004 it was about the only thing George W. Bush and John Kerry could agree on. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another GOP front-runner, is a longtime supporter; on the Left, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced line-item veto legislation this year.

Some conservative bloggers who like the line-item veto are now opposing it because, as one stated, "Do we really want Hillary Clinton to one day have that much power?", but then turned around and asked, "Also, do we honestly really want to give George Bush this much power?"

District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan called line-item veto an "unauthorized surrender to the President of an inherently legislative function."

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) branded it "a formula for executive tyranny."

Congressional calls for the line-item veto sound like, "Stop me before I spend again."

It's a crutch for legislators who want to take credit for loading up spending bills with a potpourri of pork for favored constituents and special interests, and then let the president take the blame for removing them.

Presidents, in turn, could use it as a club with Congress, knowing how difficult it would be to override the veto of something the president wanted to cut — whether it is another piece of frivolous pork or something as critical as aid to Israel.

Presidential power to pick and choose spending items after Congress has appropriated money is dangerous. Presidents are as likely to use it for helping friends, punishing foes, and buying lawmakers' votes on other measures as they would for prudent fiscal control.

If you think the proliferation of earmarks is out of control now, the line-item veto could actually wind up producing even more pork-barrel spending, with lawmakers adding items to bills as negotiating chips in bargaining with the White House.

The line-item veto is a gimmick for cowardly politicians who want credit for spending but not the responsibility, and look to the president to take them off the hook. In other words, they're trying to pass the buck and spend it at the same time.