House Concurrent Resolution 25 directs the Idaho Legislature to apply to Congress under Article V for a convention of the states limited to proposing a constitutional amendment that would require federal outlays in any fiscal year to not exceed estimated federal revenues except during a declared national emergency. The resolution frames this request as a response to perceived risks from the national debt and urges interstate coordination to reach the two‑thirds threshold required to compel Congress to call a convention.
Practically, HCR025 is a legislative application and nothing more: it asks Congress to initiate the Article V process, instructs transmission of the application to federal and state officers, and establishes a continuing deadline for Idaho’s application. For officials and compliance officers, the resolution matters not because it changes law immediately but because it adds Idaho to a coordinated state effort that could reshape federal fiscal rules and trigger legal and constitutional questions if a convention is convened.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution applies under Article V for a convention limited to a single subject: an amendment requiring that, except during a national emergency, total federal outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed total estimated federal revenues, plus any related fiscal restraints. It instructs that the application remain in effect until either two‑thirds of states apply or December 31, 2033, and it supersedes prior Idaho applications on the same subject.
Who It Affects
The immediate addressees are federal officers (President, Congressional clerks, and Idaho’s U.S. senators and representatives) and the other state legislatures because copies must be transmitted to them. At scale, the resolution targets Congress’s budgeting authority and would, if an amendment were proposed and ratified, affect every federal agency, appropriations process, and recipients of federal funds.
Why It Matters
This is part of the modern interstate Article V strategy that can pressure Congress to propose an amendment or — if the two‑thirds threshold is reached — force a convention of the states. That raises practical questions about how a balanced‑budget rule would be drafted, enforced, and applied during emergencies, and about constitutional and procedural uncertainty around a convention’s scope and rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HCR025 is a typical state‑level Article V application: the Idaho Legislature formally asks Congress to call a convention restricted to proposing a constitutional amendment that would cap federal spending in normal years at the level of estimated revenues. The resolution traces its rationale to concerns about federal debt and invokes historical tactics (such as the so‑called thirty‑three state strategy) as context for a coordinated push among legislatures.
Beyond the basic ask, the resolution builds two operational features into Idaho’s application. First, it limits the subject matter of any convention to a single fiscal‑restraint amendment and expressly includes a carve‑out for a declared national emergency, while also allowing for “related and appropriate fiscal restraints” alongside the core revenue/outlay rule.
Second, it declares Idaho’s application to be continuing: it remains active until the legislatures of two‑thirds of states have applied on the same subject or until December 31, 2033, and it nullifies earlier Idaho applications on the same subject so that only this current text is in force from Idaho.The resolution directs transmittal of copies to federal officials (including the President, the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, and the Speaker and Clerk of the House) and to Idaho’s Congressional delegation, plus the presiding officers of each state legislature, explicitly requesting cooperation. Legally, however, this is a nonbinding political application; the Constitution obliges Congress to call a convention when it receives applications from two‑thirds of state legislatures, but it does not prescribe the procedures for running a convention, selecting delegates, or enforcing limits on scope.
Those practical and legal gaps are what make a coordinated state campaign consequential: if enough states join, the next steps would raise questions about delegate selection, voting rules, ratification mechanics, and how an eventual amendment would interact with existing federal budgeting practices and emergency authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The proposed amendment language in the resolution requires that, except during a declared national emergency, total federal outlays in any fiscal year may not exceed total estimated federal revenues for that year, with allowance for “related and appropriate fiscal restraints.”, Idaho’s application is declared a continuing application that remains active until legislatures of at least two‑thirds of states have applied on the same subject or until December 31, 2033, whichever comes first.
The resolution explicitly supersedes all prior Idaho applications on the same subject, so this single text is Idaho’s operative Article V request going forward.
HCR025 requires the clerk to send copies of the application to the President, the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker and Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Idaho’s U.S. senators and representatives, and the presiding officers of every state legislative house.
The application limits the convention to proposing an amendment on federal fiscal restraints only — it does not propose specific enforcement mechanisms, ratification mechanics, or language for how emergencies would be declared or managed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and historical context
The preamble sets out the Legislature’s factual and historical rationales: concern about the national debt and references to Article V and historical state strategies (including President Reagan’s cited thirty‑three state strategy). Practically, these clauses signal political intent and situate Idaho’s action within a broader interstate movement rather than creating operative legal obligations.
Application under Article V for a convention limited to a fiscal‑restraint amendment
This operative section contains the core application: Idaho asks Congress to call a convention limited to proposing an amendment that would cap federal outlays at estimated revenues in non‑emergency years and allow related fiscal restraints. The language defines the substantive topic of the proposed amendment but does not draft enforcement, ratification, or enforcement mechanics — it confines scope but leaves design details to a future convention or to Congress should it preempt the convention by proposing its own amendment.
Transmittal instructions
The resolution mandates that copies of Idaho’s application be sent to specified federal officers and Idaho’s Congressional delegation, and also to presiding officers in other states. That creates an administrative paper trail intended to both formally notify federal institutions and to solicit coordination among other state legislatures pursuing similar applications.
Continuing application and sunset
Idaho designates its application as continuing — effective until two‑thirds of states have applied on the same subject or until December 31, 2033 — and expressly supersedes any earlier Idaho applications on the subject. That clause standardizes Idaho’s position for counting purposes and puts a time limit on the state’s demand, which is relevant for multi‑state coordination and for states that track active applications.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Fiscal‑policy advocacy groups pushing for binding federal budget rules — the resolution strengthens their leverage by adding Idaho to the roster of state applications and by clarifying the subject and timeframe of Idaho’s demand.
- State governments concerned about federal fiscal practices — a binding amendment, if adopted, could reduce fiscal pressure that some states associate with federal deficit spending and long‑term debt burdens.
- Idaho legislators who favor state‑led constitutional change — the resolution allows them to participate in a national campaign without altering state statutes or budgets.
Who Bears the Cost
- Congress and federal agencies — a constitutional cap would constrain congressional appropriations and agency budgets, limiting flexibility for discretionary programs and complicating multi‑year program planning.
- Federal recipients and entitlement programs — a strict outlay cap could prompt cuts, eligibility changes, or earlier termination of funding streams absent additional statutory accommodation.
- State legislatures and administrative staffs coordinating the interstate effort — compiling, transmitting, and tracking applications and engaging in interstate negotiations consume legislative resources and staff time.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate objectives: imposing binding fiscal discipline at the federal level to address perceived debt risks versus preserving congressional and executive flexibility to respond to recessions, wars, and unforeseen emergencies — a trade‑off made sharper by the procedural uncertainty inherent in calling an Article V convention and by the lack of detailed drafting in this application about definitions, enforcement, and emergency procedures.
HCR025 raises a cluster of implementation and legal questions it does not resolve. First, the resolution asks for a convention “limited” to a specific amendment, but Article V is silent on enforcement of scope.
If a convention were called, states would face uncertainty about how to select delegates, who sets the rules, how votes are counted, and whether the convention could expand its agenda. Those procedural gaps can produce litigation and interstate dispute over legitimacy.
Second, the substantive text the resolution seeks leaves open crucial technical details: what counts as “estimated federal revenues” (cash receipts versus on‑budget measures, treatment of off‑budget items), how to measure outlays (gross versus net), and what qualifies as a national emergency that suspends the cap. Without clear definitions, implementation would require either a convention to draft precise language or later enabling legislation, raising the risk that unintended fiscal consequences could follow.
Finally, the resolution converts a political strategy into a formal legal instrument with a sunset: the December 31, 2033 deadline and the superseding clause affect counting and coordination among states but may complicate advocacy strategies and recordkeeping for organizations tracking active applications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.