[Huck]

I vote for bill A, which means by proxy I vote for bill B.

Close, but not exactly. I vote for RULE A, which means I vote to pass the Senate bill. But you get the basic idea. I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents this.

[Lazamataz]

Oh dear. Post #175 seems to blow your concept out of the water, inasmuch as Stevens (of SCOTUS) writes: "“...our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became ‘Public Law 105—33’ after three procedural steps were taken:

“(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law.’ Art. I, Section 7.

“If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature.

“Something that might be known as ‘Public Law 105—33 as modified by the President’ may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may ‘become a law’ pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.”

There. A direct ruling on procedure. Right there.