Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.
HOUSE · HJRES 14 119 CONGRESS

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

INTRODUCED
January 09, 2025
POLICY AREA
STATUS
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗
This is a joint resolution, not an ordinary bill

A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Bill vs. resolution, explained →

Summary

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived. The resolution, H.J.Res. 14 introduced in the 119th Congress by Representative Davidson, would remove the federal government's authority to impose an income tax, with the sole exception of allowing income taxation during times of war declared by Congress. The proposed amendment includes two sections: Section 1 repeals the Sixteenth Amendment and limits Congress's power to tax incomes only during declared war; Section 2 sets the effective date for the repeal to begin two years after ratification and requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to Congress within 180 days after ratification containing recommendations for implementing legislation. As a proposed constitutional amendment, this joint resolution does not go to the President for signature but instead requires a two-thirds vote for approval in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) within seven years of submission. If enacted, this amendment would fundamentally alter the federal tax system by eliminating the primary source of federal revenue—the individual and corporate income tax—forcing a complete restructuring of how the federal government funds its operations, potentially shifting to alternative revenue sources such as tariffs, excise taxes, or a national sales tax, while significantly reducing federal fiscal capacity except during wartime.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Addresses concerns about tax code complexity and perceived unfairness by eliminating the current income tax system, which some critics argue contains loopholes favoring the wealthy and corporations.
+Could stimulate debate about fundamental tax reform and lead to the creation of a more transparent, equitable, or straightforward tax system to replace the income tax.
+Reduces the federal government's capacity to fund large-scale military engagements unless explicitly approved by Congress as a war, potentially acting as a check on unilateral executive war powers.
+Aligns with populist frustrations toward the IRS and federal tax enforcement, potentially increasing public trust in government by removing a widely disliked institution.
+Encourages exploration of alternative revenue models, such as wealth taxes or financial transaction taxes, that might be more progressive than the income tax.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Eliminates the primary tool for progressive taxation, which is essential for reducing income inequality and funding social programs that benefit low- and middle-income Americans.
−Would likely result in severe underfunding of critical federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and environmental protection, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations.
−Creates a significant risk of shifting the tax burden to consumption-based taxes (e.g., national sales tax or tariffs), which are inherently regressive and would increase costs for everyday goods and services.
−Undermines the federal government's ability to engage in countercyclical fiscal policy during recessions, potentially worsening economic downturns and increasing unemployment.
−The transition period and implementation uncertainty could cause financial market instability, disrupt retirement planning, and harm long-term economic growth.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Eliminates the federal income tax, which many Republicans view as an overreach of federal power and a penalty on productivity and economic success.
+Restores fiscal autonomy to states and individuals by limiting federal taxation to only wartime emergencies, aligning with principles of limited government and states' rights.
+Encourages economic growth, investment, and entrepreneurship by removing what is seen as a disincentive to work, save, and invest income.
+Forces Congress to prioritize spending and live within more constrained means, promoting fiscal discipline and reducing the likelihood of deficit spending and national debt accumulation.
+Aligns with the original constitutional design where the federal government relied primarily on tariffs and excise taxes, returning to a more historically rooted fiscal system.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Removes a stable and significant revenue stream that funds essential federal functions such as national defense, veterans' benefits, and infrastructure, potentially weakening national security.
−Creates uncertainty and economic disruption during the transition period as businesses, individuals, and governments adapt to a new tax system.
−May lead to increased reliance on regressive alternative taxes like tariffs or national sales taxes, which could disproportionately burden lower-income Americans.
−Limits the federal government's ability to respond to economic crises or national emergencies outside of declared war, reducing policy flexibility.
−Could result in increased fiscal pressure on states to compensate for lost federal revenue, potentially leading to higher state taxes or reduced services.

History

Apr 07, 2025
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Jan 09, 2025
Jan 09, 2025
Jan 09, 2025
Introduced in House