In a rare moment of apparent candor, members of Congress today are openly embarrassed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of their long-treasured line-item veto. We, they admit, of all people, should know what the constitution says about how a bill becomes a law.

If the candor were genuine, the chagrin would be not about poor reading comprehension but about the underlying character flaw that made the veto so desirable — Congress’s inability to control itself.

The court’s 6-3 decision striking down the line-item veto is simple. No mountain of precedent, no hair-splitting, no great debate. Just a straightforward reading of that remarkably straightforward document, the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the presentment clause of Article I that says the president can do only one of two things with a bill passed by Congress — sign it or veto it. No tinkering.

Congress, apparently, always meant to read the entire Constitition, but never could get past the blasted Preamble.

But if the line-item veto has come to a sad end, its beginning was even sadder. This goes way back to the Reagan era, when the free-spending Democrats controlled Congress and the president and his minority cohort swore that giving the White House a blue pencil to excise the excess would allow for both increased defense spending and generous tax cuts and would generate a veritable tsunami of milk and honey across the land.

So when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, they had no choice but to make good on their promise, even if it meant cooperating with a Democratic president.

Turned out, the fat Democrats stuffed into the federal budget bore a remarkable resemblance to the lard favored by Republicans. Every tiny Clinton veto — and they were all way too tiny to be anything more than symbols of frugality — had a very upset constituency. In fact, the two loudest complainers, those who forced this issue upon the Supreme Court, are prime examples of wounded special interests — New York hospitals sued to get back a provision that gave them preferential treatment in receiving federal funds and Idaho potato growers sued to get back a tax break of which they’d grown quite fond.

Now, those who campaigned for the veto swear they’ll be back, this time with something that will get past the Supreme Court and that a Democratic president cannot abuse. This despite a clear sign from the Supreme Court that legislation won’t cut it, only a constitutional amendment will do.

Amending the Constitution is a difficult, time-consuming process. In the meantime, lawmakers could have the same bottom-line effect by not packing every piece of legislation with goodies for the home district or a favorite campaign contributor. But that, of course, would take restraint, a commodity which Congress has in embarrassingly short supply.