Congress proposes to lock the filibuster into the Constitution itself
H.J.Res. 4 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that debate upon legislation pending before the Senate may not be brought to a close without the concurrence of a minimum of three-fifths of the Senators. · Filed by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 3, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to lock the Senate filibuster rule into the Constitution itself. Currently, the Senate can change its filibuster rules by a simple majority vote; this amendment would require a three-fifths supermajority (60 senators) to end debate on any bill (except presidential nominations). The effect is to constitutionally entrench the filibuster, making it nearly impossible for any future Senate majority to eliminate or weaken it without amending the Constitution again.
Why we flagged it
The bill's sole function is to propose a constitutional amendment that would embed the current Senate filibuster rule (60-vote threshold to close debate) into the Constitution itself, making it immune to future rule changes by simple majority.
What the text implies
- Ratification requires 38 state legislatures (3/4 of 50), a threshold so high that a single region or ideological bloc can veto the amendment indefinitely, effectively giving structural veto power to a minority of states.
- Excludes presidential nominations from the filibuster rule, meaning judicial and executive appointments remain subject to simple-majority confirmation—a significant asymmetry that may incentivize future Senates to pack courts or agencies via appointment rather than legislation.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The amendment protects legislative minorities and slows majoritarian overreach, which can shield unpopular groups and prevent rapid reversals—a democratic safeguard. However, it also locks in minority obstruction, making it harder for any majority (including future popular mandates) to pass legislation, potentially leaving urgent public needs unaddressed and shifting power toward obstruction over governance.