Home  /  Recent Bills  /  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.
SENATE · SJRES 2 119 CONGRESS

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.

INTRODUCED
January 08, 2025
POLICY AREA
STATUS
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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

S.J. Res. 2 is a joint resolution proposing three constitutional amendments to be voted on by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. The first amendment would grant the President a line-item veto power, allowing the President to reduce or disapprove specific appropriations in bills passed by Congress, with Congress having the ability to override such actions by a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The second amendment would impose term limits on members of Congress: limiting Representatives to six terms (12 years) and Senators to two terms (12 years), with terms served before ratification not counting toward the limit. The third amendment would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in each chamber of Congress to pass any legislation that imposes, authorizes, or raises taxes or fees, including increases in tax rates, new taxes, or reductions in tax exemptions, deductions, or credits, and such legislation must be single-subject (containing no other provisions). As a joint resolution proposing constitutional amendments, it does not go to the President for signature but instead requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to be submitted to the states for ratification, where it must be approved by the legislatures of at least 38 states within seven years to become part of the Constitution. The resolution aims to enhance presidential authority over spending, limit career-long service in Congress, and make tax increases more difficult to achieve, reflecting concerns about fiscal responsibility, political accountability, and governmental efficiency.

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
+The line-item veto could help reduce wasteful spending and improve the efficiency of government operations, which Democrats also support as a means to free up resources for priorities like education and healthcare.
+Term limits could increase diversity and representation in Congress by opening seats to new candidates from underrepresented groups, promoting a more inclusive legislature.
+The two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases would encourage bipartisan cooperation and discourage partisan tax hikes, potentially leading to more thoughtful and consensus-based fiscal policy.
+By limiting the influence of long-serving members, term limits could reduce the power of entrenched interests and make Congress more responsive to the public.
+The line-item veto would give the President a tool to resist unnecessary spending, even if proposed by Democrats, which could be seen as a check on excessive spending regardless of party.
+Requiring a supermajority for tax increases might protect middle- and lower-income Americans from regressive tax burdens by making it harder to pass such measures without broad agreement.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−The line-item veto grants excessive power to the President, allowing unilateral changes to laws passed by Congress, which undermines the principle of separation of powers and congressional supremacy in appropriations.
−Term limits would arbitrarily remove popular and effective representatives from office, denying voters the right to re-elect officials they support and undermining democratic choice.
−The two-thirds requirement for tax increases would make it nearly impossible to raise revenue needed for essential public services, social programs, and infrastructure investments, exacerbating inequality and underfunding critical needs.
−Term limits could increase the influence of special interests and lobbyists, as inexperienced legislators may be more susceptible to external pressures and less capable of drafting effective legislation.
−The line-item veto could be used by a President to target specific programs or projects for political reasons, rather than based on merit, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory spending cuts.
−The two-thirds tax vote requirement would hinder efforts to address climate change, expand healthcare access, or fund education, as these initiatives often require revenue increases that would be difficult to achieve with such a high threshold.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+The line-item veto would give the President a powerful tool to eliminate wasteful spending and pork-barrel projects in appropriations bills, promoting fiscal discipline.
+Term limits for Congress would reduce the influence of career politicians, increase turnover, and bring fresh perspectives to government, aligning with Republican values of limited government and anti-entrenched power.
+Requiring a two-thirds supermajority for tax increases would make it significantly harder to raise taxes, protecting taxpayers and encouraging fiscal responsibility, a core Republican principle.
+The line-item veto would enhance the President's ability to check congressional spending, restoring a balance of power that has been weakened by congressional dominance in budgetary matters.
+Term limits would prevent the accumulation of excessive power and influence by long-serving members, reducing the risk of corruption and special interest capture.
+The two-thirds tax vote requirement would force Congress to consider more carefully the necessity of tax increases and promote bipartisan consensus on fiscal matters.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−The line-item veto could be seen as an overreach of executive power, potentially allowing the President to undermine congressional appropriations authority and disrupt the legislative process.
−Term limits might remove experienced and effective legislators from Congress, leading to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise that could hinder effective governance.
−The two-thirds requirement for tax increases could lead to legislative gridlock, making it difficult to address necessary revenue needs for defense, infrastructure, or other national priorities.
−The line-item veto might be used by the President to retaliate against political opponents or to extract concessions unrelated to spending, creating political instability.
−Term limits could increase the influence of unelected staff and lobbyists, as legislators with less experience may rely more heavily on external experts.
−The two-thirds tax vote requirement could make it nearly impossible to close tax loopholes or eliminate wasteful tax expenditures, as such changes are often structured as tax increases.

History

Jan 08, 2025
Jan 08, 2025