Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Senate's current cloture and filibuster rules are contrary to the constitutional design of two co-equal majoritarian legislative bodies, are non-deliberative in practice, disenfranchise Members of the House of Representatives and their constituents, and disrupt the proper balance of powers between the two chambers of Congress, and for other purposes.
This House Resolution asserts that the United States Senate's current cloture and filibuster rules fundamentally contradict the constitutional design of Congress. It argues that the Framers intended a bicameral legislature composed of two co-equal chambers, both operating on the principle of majority rule, as evidenced by writings from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton . The resolution highlights that the Constitution deliberately rejected supermajority requirements for ordinary legislation, enumerating only a few specific exceptions. The resolution distinguishes the modern filibuster from its historical form, stating that it is no longer a deliberative mechanism requiring continuous debate. Instead, it has become a procedural veto, allowing a minority of 41 senators to block legislation without engaging in substantive discussion, thereby preventing a vote on bills passed by the House. This practice, the resolution contends, is antithetical to a republican form of government and undermines the constitutional requirement for both chambers to act on legislation. Furthermore, the resolution argues that the filibuster creates a structural asymmetry, nullifying the legislative output of the House of Representatives and preventing its bills from receiving proper consideration in the Senate. It cites Supreme Court precedent, such as INS v. Chadha , to emphasize that constitutional procedures are integral to the separation of powers. The resolution suggests that a Senate rule effectively nullifying the House's majoritarian function raises serious constitutional questions. Finally, the resolution asserts that the filibuster unconstitutionally disenfranchises House members and their constituents by rendering their votes and legislative efforts meaningless. It references Supreme Court cases like Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders to underscore the importance of votes carrying their intended weight. The House therefore expresses its sense that the Senate should reform or abolish its filibuster rules to restore majority rule, ensure timely floor votes on House-passed legislation, and preserve minority rights without allowing permanent obstruction, thereby facilitating deliberation, accountability, and majority governance consistent with the Framers' vision. The Clerk of the House is directed to transmit this resolution to key Senate leaders.
Get AI-generated questions to help you understand this bill better
Timeline
Submitted in House
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Submitted in House
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Senate's current cloture and filibuster rules are contrary to the constitutional design of two co-equal majoritarian legislative bodies, are non-deliberative in practice, disenfranchise Members of the House of Representatives and their constituents, and disrupt the proper balance of powers between the two chambers of Congress, and for other purposes.
USA119th CongressHRES-1369| House
| Updated: 6/15/2026
This House Resolution asserts that the United States Senate's current cloture and filibuster rules fundamentally contradict the constitutional design of Congress. It argues that the Framers intended a bicameral legislature composed of two co-equal chambers, both operating on the principle of majority rule, as evidenced by writings from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton . The resolution highlights that the Constitution deliberately rejected supermajority requirements for ordinary legislation, enumerating only a few specific exceptions. The resolution distinguishes the modern filibuster from its historical form, stating that it is no longer a deliberative mechanism requiring continuous debate. Instead, it has become a procedural veto, allowing a minority of 41 senators to block legislation without engaging in substantive discussion, thereby preventing a vote on bills passed by the House. This practice, the resolution contends, is antithetical to a republican form of government and undermines the constitutional requirement for both chambers to act on legislation. Furthermore, the resolution argues that the filibuster creates a structural asymmetry, nullifying the legislative output of the House of Representatives and preventing its bills from receiving proper consideration in the Senate. It cites Supreme Court precedent, such as INS v. Chadha , to emphasize that constitutional procedures are integral to the separation of powers. The resolution suggests that a Senate rule effectively nullifying the House's majoritarian function raises serious constitutional questions. Finally, the resolution asserts that the filibuster unconstitutionally disenfranchises House members and their constituents by rendering their votes and legislative efforts meaningless. It references Supreme Court cases like Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders to underscore the importance of votes carrying their intended weight. The House therefore expresses its sense that the Senate should reform or abolish its filibuster rules to restore majority rule, ensure timely floor votes on House-passed legislation, and preserve minority rights without allowing permanent obstruction, thereby facilitating deliberation, accountability, and majority governance consistent with the Framers' vision. The Clerk of the House is directed to transmit this resolution to key Senate leaders.