Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most prominent recent efforts was the line-item veto, but the Supreme Court (rightly) said that it requires a constitutional amendment. You also have to be careful what you wish for. For years everybody bemoaned so-called earmarking. Congress finally prohibited earmarking in their procedures. But many academics have suggested that an unintended consequence was less compromise and greater partisanship in Co…
Line-item veto sounds interesting, but extremely dangerous. Some bills meanings and intent could be completely reversed by vetoing a single provision in e.g. definitions section. This wouldn't fix the bundling issue, it would just make the president another party in it, and give them super-congressman powers with the ability to essentially make legislature all by themselves. (And the first couple of paragraphs on the…
Line-item veto, both where currently used in states (for the most part, Wisconsin seems to be a radical exception) and when it was (unconstitutionally) adopted at the federal level, does not allow that.
It allows separate veto of individual appropriations of money within a bill that included one or more appropriations. It doesn't allow separate veto of arbitrary provisions of law.
This can still drastically alter the intent of a bill, but not it in the way you suggest.