Joint ResolutionEdit
A joint resolution is a formal instrument used in the legislative process that, in the United States, is typically passed by both chambers of Congress and either signed by the president into law or, in the case of constitutional changes, used to propose amendments to the Constitution. While it shares much of the procedural machinery of a regular bill, a joint resolution serves distinct purposes and carries different implications in practice. In federal practice, joint resolutions are as legally binding as ordinary laws when enacted, but their strategic uses—such as proposing constitutional amendments or facilitating temporary funding—set them apart as a tool of deliberate, often urgent, congressional action.
Joint resolutions operate within the same basic framework as other legislation: they are introduced, assigned to committees, debated, and must be approved by a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before moving to the executive for signature or veto. Where they diverge is in purpose and timing. A joint resolution may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution under Article V of the United States Constitution, in which case it does not go to the president for signature but instead is transmitted to the states for ratification. More commonly, joint resolutions are employed to carry ordinary laws, including temporary funding measures known as Continuing resolution that keep government operations funded when regular appropriations bills have not yet cleared Congress.
Scope and Functions
Proposing constitutional amendments: The classic constitutional use is to propose amendments via a joint resolution, with the two-thirds votes required in both chambers and subsequent ratification by the states. The process reflects a built-in safeguard that changes to the fundamental charter of the nation should reflect broad, cross-cutting consensus. An illustrative historical example is the proposed amendment that would ultimately become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution—originally passed as a joint resolution in the 18th century and ratified more than two centuries later. The long delay underscores both the difficulty of constitutional change and the deliberate nature of the process.
Enacting ordinary laws: When used for regular legislation, a joint resolution functions like any bill once it clears both chambers and is signed by the president, or becomes law through the normal signing/override process. This makes it a versatile vehicle for legislation that enjoys broad support or needs swift enactment.
Budget and appropriations: The federal budget process frequently leverages joint resolutions, particularly for continuing resolutions that fund government programs when normal appropriations bills are pending. This usage provides a mechanism to prevent a shutdown and to maintain continuity in government operations, while giving lawmakers time to negotiate longer-term funding.
Expressing legislative intent or formal positions: Joint resolutions can be used to express the sense or policy position of Congress, though such resolutions do not carry the same legal force as measures that create or alter law. In practice, however, certain approved joint resolutions do establish binding provisions on executive action or funding.
Constitutional and Political Context
Constitutional basis and amendment process: The Constitution lays out the process for amendments in a way that makes broad national agreement a prerequisite. When a joint resolution is used to propose an amendment, its passage in both houses, by two-thirds, is followed by a state-by-state ratification process. This multi-stage pathway is designed to slow the pace of fundamental change and to ensure sustained consensus.
Relationship to other legislative devices: The legislative toolkit includes simple resolutions, which express the opinion of a single chamber, and concurrent resolutions, which express the joint sentiment of both chambers but do not have the force of law. A joint resolution, by contrast, becomes binding law when enacted, or, in the constitutional-amendment context, initiates a process with a different, longer arc.
Debates and controversies: Supporters emphasize the efficiency and clarity joint resolutions can bring to high-priority actions that require fast, bipartisan action or constitutional reform. Critics, often from the right-of-center school of constitutionalism, cautions that overuse of joint resolutions for urgent funding can swell deficits or threaten fiscal discipline if not paired with transparent, accountable budgeting and proper legislative scrutiny. When used to constrain executive powers—such as certain provisions in the War Powers area—critics argue about whether the president’s ability to respond to threats is being unnecessarily hampered, while defenders note that such measures are meant to reassert Congress’s constitutional oversight.
Notable Uses and Debates
Constitutional amendments: A prominent historical case is the use of a joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment. The process requires two-thirds support in both chambers and, for amendments, does not require presidential signature. The eventual ratification depends on the states, highlighting a deliberate, multi-step approach to altering the nation’s foundational rules.
War Powers and executive authority: The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted as a joint resolution with the aim of reasserting congressional oversight over military engagements. It remains a focal point of debate—supporters say it rebalances authority between the executive and legislative branches, while opponents argue that it can constrain timely presidential action in emergencies. This debate is a classic case study of how a joint resolution can be deployed to shape not only law but the power balance between branches of government.
Budgetary discipline and governance: In periods of fiscal strain or partisan standoffs, continuing resolutions passed as joint resolutions have become common tools to prevent government shutdowns while negotiations continue. Advocates frame this use as prudent governance—preventing abrupt disruption—while critics warn that protracted reliance on CRs can mask unresolved policy choices and undermine long-term budgeting.