Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes three amendments to the U.S. Constitution: to give the President a line-item veto, to limit the number of terms Members of Congress may serve, and to require two-thirds votes for new or increased taxes. It is a proposal and not law; it would become part of the Constitution only if three-fourths of the States ratify it within seven years. Until that state ratification happens, the changes would have no legal effect.
As a constitutional amendment proposal, it must be approved by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress and is not presented to the President; after Congressional approval it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years.
This joint resolution proposes three constitutional amendments: (1) grant the President a line-item veto to reduce or disapprove appropriations and return objections to Congress; (2) impose term limits of six House terms and two Senate terms for future service; and (3) require any law imposing or raising taxes or fees to be single-subject and approved by two-thirds of each House.
Each amendment would take effect for terms beginning after ratification and requires state ratification within seven years.
Major constitutional reforms face steep supermajority and state ratification hurdles; content is controversial with significant fiscal effects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill presents clear and specific constitutional amendments with high specificity in operative mechanics, a defined ratification timeframe, and some attention to integration with existing Article I procedures; but it omits fiscal impact discussion and leaves certain key terms and anti‑circumvention safeguards unspecified.
Liberals emphasize executive power shift; conservatives emphasize fiscal restraint.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize executive power shift; conservatives emphasize fiscal restraint.
Skeptical of the package overall.
Supports reducing waste and accountability, but opposes concentrating budget power in the presidency and blocking revenue tools for progressive programs.
Mixed view: welcomes measures aiming at fiscal discipline and anti-incumbency, but worries about constitutional questions, practical governance, and unintended gridlock on revenue and appropriations.
Generally favorable.
Sees stronger presidential line-item authority, term limits, and a supermajority tax rule as tools to constrain spending, reduce career incumbency, and protect taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Major constitutional reforms face steep supermajority and state ratification hurdles; content is controversial with significant fiscal effects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize executive power shift; conservatives emphasize fiscal restraint.
Major constitutional reforms face steep supermajority and state ratification hurdles; content is controversial with significant fiscal effe…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill presents clear and specific constitutional amendments with high specificity in operative mechanics, a defined ratification timeframe, and some attention to integratio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.