Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require that debate on legislation in the Senate cannot be ended except by existing law as of January 3, 2025, by unanimous consent, or by the affirmative vote of at least three-fifths of Senators. It would not apply to Presidential nominations. As a proposed constitutional amendment, it would change the Constitution only if the required state ratifications happen after Congress approves it.
A constitutional amendment proposal must be approved by the required supermajority in Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states; it is not sent to the President for signature.
This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring that debate on any Senate measure or motion (excluding Presidential nominations) may not be brought to a close except by methods allowed under laws in effect on January 3, 2025, unanimous consent, or the concurrence of at least three-fifths of Senators.
If ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures, the amendment would become part of the Constitution.
Constitutional amendments are historically difficult; this one addresses a high-stakes procedural dispute and needs wide congressional and state-level consensus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states its purpose and prescribes a specific, quantitative rule for ending debate on Senate legislation while preserving certain exceptions.
Progressives see the amendment as entrenching obstruction; conservatives see it as protecting minority checks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives see the amendment as entrenching obstruction; conservatives see it as protecting minority checks.
Likely opposed.
The amendment would entrench a supermajority barrier that makes passing progressive legislation harder.
It excludes nominations but still strengthens procedural obstacles to bills like voting rights or climate action.
Mixed view.
Values the amendment's promotion of deliberation and bipartisanship, but worries it will increase gridlock and frustrate necessary majoritarian action.
Sees need for clear exceptions and careful drafting.
Generally supportive.
The amendment strengthens minority protections in the Senate, promotes stability, and discourages transient majorities from imposing sweeping changes.
Excluding Presidential nominations is acceptable to many conservatives.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments are historically difficult; this one addresses a high-stakes procedural dispute and needs wide congressional and state-level consensus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives see the amendment as entrenching obstruction; conservatives see it as protecting minority checks.
Constitutional amendments are historically difficult; this one addresses a high-stakes procedural dispute and needs wide congressional and…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states its purpose and prescribes a specific, quantitative rule for ending debate on Senate legislation while prese…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.