A resolution is not always a bill, but they are both types of legislation. The main difference is that bills must be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President to become binding law, while the impact of resolutions varies.
Types of resolutions and their effects:
*Simple Resolutions: These affect only the chamber where they are introduced (either the House or Senate). They are used for internal matters, such as setting rules for the chamber or expressing opinions, and do not have the force of law.
*Concurrent Resolutions: These are passed by both the House and Senate but do not require the President's signature, so they also do not have the force of law. They are typically used for matters affecting both chambers, such as setting adjournment dates or expressing the sentiments of both houses.
*Joint Resolutions: These are functionally similar to bills and are considered to have the same effect as laws. They require approval from both houses of Congress and the President's signature to take effect (except for those proposing constitutional amendments).
According to
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm:
There is no real difference between a joint resolution and a bill. The joint resolution is generally used for continuing or emergency appropriations.
I'm pretty sure this isn't a simple resolution, since it isn't an internal matter. Doesn't seem to be a concurrent resolution either, for the same reason. That would leave it to be at least a nascent joint resolution. So if it were taken up by the House, and not vetoed, it would have the force of law.
Apparently, they can be distinguished by the naming convention applied to them. I don't know the name of this resolution, but, as noted, it wouldn't make sense as either a simple or concurrent resolution. Unless it is entirely performative, as you expect.
(By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be respective, or respectful either 😊.)
= new reply since forum marked as read