Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This concurrent resolution calls on Congress to convene an Article V Convention to propose a "Fiscal Responsibility Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, unless a House Clerk report within 60 days shows fewer than two‑thirds of state applications. It requires any amendment from that convention to be ratified by a vote of the people in conventions in three‑quarters (38) of the states, and directs transmission of the resolution to the Administrator of General Services for state legislatures.
Progressive fears cuts to social programs; conservatives favor fiscal limits.
Procedural route is straightforward but subject matter is polarizing and raises constitutional concerns among many members.
This concurrent resolution calls on Congress to convene an Article V Convention to propose a "Fiscal Responsibility Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, unless a House Clerk report within 60 days shows fewer than two‑thirds of state applications.
It requires any amendment from that convention to be ratified by a vote of the people in conventions in three‑quarters (38) of the states, and directs transmission of the resolution to the Administrator of General Services for state legislatures.
Controversial, constitutionally complex proposal with disputed factual predicates and high potential for legal and political opposition.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressive fears cuts to social programs; conservatives favor fiscal limits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive fears cuts to social programs; conservatives favor fiscal limits.
Skeptical and likely opposed.
The persona would view a fiscal‑responsibility amendment as a potential vehicle for cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs.
They would also worry about an open-ended Article V convention becoming a pathway for other, unrelated constitutional changes.
Ambivalent and cautious.
The persona recognizes legitimate concerns about rising federal debt and the value of public involvement, but worries about legal ambiguity, the counting of state applications, and unintended consequences from an Article V convention.
Generally supportive.
The persona would welcome a state‑driven Article V path to impose fiscal limits, such as a balanced‑budget amendment, and prefers popular ratification to ensure public legitimacy and bypass what they see as congressional inaction.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Controversial, constitutionally complex proposal with disputed factual predicates and high potential for legal and political opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive fears cuts to social programs; conservatives favor fiscal limits.
Controversial, constitutionally complex proposal with disputed factual predicates and high potential for legal and political opposition.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Calling an Article V Convention for proposing a Fiscal Respons…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.