A joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States relative to the line item veto, a limitation on the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve, and requiring a vote of two-thirds of the membership of both Houses of Congress on any legislation raising or imposing new taxes or fees.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 8, 2025
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to fundamentally alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and within Congress itself, by introducing presidential line-item veto authority, congressional term limits, and a supermajority requirement for tax legislation.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes three distinct amendments to the U.S. Constitution: granting the President a line-item veto power over appropriations, imposing term limits of six terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators, and requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers for any legislation that imposes new taxes or fees or raises existing ones, while also mandating such legislation be single-subject.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue these amendments would enhance fiscal responsibility by giving the President more control over spending, reduce the influence of career politicians by imposing term limits, and make it harder for Congress to raise taxes, thereby protecting taxpayers and promoting economic growth and accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that a line-item veto could shift too much power to the President, term limits would lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise in Congress, and a supermajority requirement for taxes would make essential government functions harder to fund and could lead to legislative gridlock.
The bill text is very short and straightforward to read, but its implications are far-reaching and require significant consideration.
Article-- (first one)
Presidential Line Item Veto Authority
This amendment would allow the President to reduce or disapprove specific appropriations within any bill or joint resolution presented for signature. If the President uses this power, the modified bill becomes law. The President must return the disapproved portions and objections to the originating House within 10 days, and Congress can then separately reconsider those specific appropriations under the standard veto override process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision would enhance fiscal discipline, curb wasteful spending, and allow the President to eliminate "pork barrel" projects without jeopardizing an entire appropriations bill. It empowers the executive to act as a check on congressional spending.
Critics contend
Critics contend that a line-item veto could give the President undue power over the legislative branch, allowing them to target specific programs for political reasons or to punish opponents. It could also lead to an erosion of Congress's "power of the purse" and increase executive overreach.
Tradeoffs
Balances executive efficiency in controlling spending against congressional authority over appropriations and the potential for presidential abuse of power.
Article-- (second one)
Term Limits for Members of Congress
This amendment would limit Representatives to six two-year terms (12 years total) and Senators to two six-year terms (12 years total). Terms served to fill a vacancy for more than one year (for Representatives) or more than three years (for Senators) would count towards the limit. Importantly, any terms served before the ratification date of this article would not count towards these limits.
Article-- (third one)
Two-Thirds Vote for Tax and Fee Legislation
This amendment would require any legislation that imposes new taxes or fees, or raises existing ones (including rate increases, fixed amount increases, or decreases/elimination of exemptions/credits), to be agreed to by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members of each House of Congress. Additionally, such legislation must contain "no other subject," meaning it must be single-subject.
The proposed amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for tax or fee legislation also mandates that such legislation "contains no other subject."
Article-- Section 1 and Section 2 (third article)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative drafting technique to ensure legislative integrity and prevent logrolling, but its constitutional application to tax bills could have profound and potentially unforeseen consequences.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents unrelated policy provisions from being attached to essential tax legislation, ensuring transparency and accountability for each measure. It forces Congress to vote on tax policy on its own merits.
Case against: Opponents contend that a strict constitutional single-subject rule, particularly for complex tax bills, could make comprehensive tax reform or even routine adjustments extremely difficult. Many tax bills inherently touch upon various economic sectors and might struggle to meet a strict "no other subject" interpretation.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on the legislative process for tax policy, potentially simplifying individual tax bills but complicating broader fiscal legislation.
The amendment explicitly defines "raising any tax or fee" to include "any increase in a rate of tax or fee imposed on a percentage basis, any increase in an amount of a tax or fee imposed on a flat or fixed basis, or any decrease in or elimination of an exemption, waiver, credit, or deduction with respect to a tax or fee."
Article-- Section 2 (third article)
Why it matters:This is a precise legal definition intended to prevent loopholes, but its broadness means many seemingly minor technical adjustments to tax law would fall under the two-thirds requirement.
Case for: Proponents argue this comprehensive definition is necessary to prevent Congress from circumventing the two-thirds requirement by indirectly raising taxes through the elimination of deductions or credits, ensuring the spirit of the amendment is upheld.
Case against: Critics argue that such a broad definition could make even minor, technical adjustments to the tax code subject to a supermajority vote, hindering Congress's ability to manage the tax system efficiently and respond to economic needs. It could also make closing tax loopholes extremely difficult.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of legislation requiring a two-thirds vote, making many more types of tax adjustments subject to the higher threshold.