E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe House of Representatives yesterday passed a Republican debt-ceiling proposal providing that if either chamber of Congress hasn't passed a budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year by April 15, the congressional payroll office must withhold the paychecks for the members of that body.
In other words, they wouldn't get paid until they act or until the current session of Congress ends in 2015.
But is that provision constitutional?
The 27th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1992, is intended to prevent members of Congress from giving themselves a raise. But it doesn't merely say that any raise can't take effect until the next Congress. It says members cannot vary their own pay.
Here's the entire text of the amendment: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."
The debt limit bill, said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, "was carefully crafted to comply with the requirements of the 27th Amendment."
"The amount that members are paid will not be reduced nor will it be raised," Camp said during Wednesday's House debate. "There is no requirement in the 27th Amendment which states that members have to be paid weekly, biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly, or what have you, only that the pay that they receive will not vary."
Not so, said Rep. Robert Brady, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who believes putting the money in escrow, as the House bill provides, doesn't solve the issue. "If you aren't getting a paycheck in a month and you're going to wait for 18 months, that's varying. So it could be -- and, in my opinion, it is -- a constitutional problem," he said.
Who's right? Does holding the checks, but ultimately giving members their money, avoid a constitutional defect?
Professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law doesn't believe it's constitutional.
"I don't think this is even a close question: In my view, the escrow provision clearly does not [avoid the constitutional defect]," Froomkin said.
"The prohibition on varying the compensation seems pretty clear to me. It means no changes in amount and no changes in time of payment, because there is a time value to money. Anyone who gets a salary would think it a very material change in the terms if the money were escrowed for more than a year and a half instead of being made available to pay the mortgage," he added.
The opposite view came in a statement released by the House Ways and Means Committee, written by conservative lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey. "It is creative, it is fiscally responsible, and it is attentive to the text and structure of the Constitution," they said.
Some consideration was given to putting the deferred paychecks into an interest-bearing account, but Republicans rejected that idea, concluding that it would increase members' pay in clear violation of the 27th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has never interpreted the amendment, and no member of Congress has yet come forward to suggest suing over the escrow provision. Given the Supreme Court’s narrow view of who has legal authority to sue, it’s likely only a member of Congress who had a paycheck withheld would have the proper standing to challenge it.
Leave a Comment:
v. var·ied (- d), var·y·ing, var·ies (- z). v.tr. 1. To make or cause changes in the characteristics or attributes of; modify or alter. 2. To give variety to. All I had to do was look it up. I wish the people in Washington had access to a dictionary. Then, they could stop wasting all of my $$$$$$.
MSNBC....aka...the Obama network is talking about the constitution....are you freaking kidding me.....Obama has done nothing but stump on the constitution since he took office...and they are asking if it is constitutional? Why don't the POTUS come up with a budget....it is his job....according to the CONSTITUTION....he hasn't prepared a budget since he has been in office....4 yrs....and Dirty Harry refuses to bring bills up on the senate floor...what hipocrites...
Dixie-For the really simple people who don't bother to read before commenting (like yourself), please go back and read previous posts which will explain in real simple terms (read it s-l-o-w-l-y so you can understand) why what you just stated is completely ignorant!
And why do all of the ignorant women end their name in 'girl'?
What I find so funny about all these posts it that the right is trying to support the lies of the Republicans and the left is trying to support the lies of the Democrats. Until everyone on these board and other boards are willing to be just as hard on their own party as they are on the other party nothing will ever change in Washington. Washington knows that if they keep the American population arguing against each other that they will be able to get away with any and everything.
We the people are allowing ourselves to be lied to by both sides. And we try and support those lies. No one wants to step up and call everyone in Washington a liar. Which they all are.
Until we all start holding everyone in Washington accountable nothing will change. Until we all start telling the side we support to come clean nothing will change. Until we all start telling the side we support to stop playing politics with our lives nothing will change.
Call me names, try and defend your position. The sad fact is all of you know you can lie to everyone else but you cannot lie to yourself. Look at what you are supporting. Look at the big picture. Then ask yourself how long will you allow the lies from both sides the ruin the lives of all Americans.
I too am guilty of what I just wrote. However as of yesterday, before I post anything on any of these boards the first thing I do is send an email to my U.S. Senators and Representative. I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat. I want them to know how I feels about all the B/S coming out of Washington. I also send emails to the President and Vice-President. I don't use some of those sites that send emails for you. I want all of them to know that I as individual can speak for myself. I want all of them to know what I as an individual want them to do. And I plan to send them all emails daily. I want them to know I will find to time in my life to let them know daily what I think.
I don't need AARP to speak for me which I am a member. I don't need the NRA to speak for me which I am a member. I don't need NCOA to speak for me which I am a member. I don't need Oathkeepers to speak for which I am a member. And I can continue. Each and every one of you on these boards need to do the same. If Washington starts getting emails daily from the American people things will change. Coming voting time if everyone stops believing that their vote don't count and go vote things will change. Let's get rid of the electoral college. Let's let the people votes mean something.
So to everyone posting unless you are doing the same, then your comments on these boards will result in nothing changing in Washington. Your name calling and rants will not change anything. It might make you feel good but it will not change a thing.
I want both side to stop showing us how well they can twist the words of the English language to hide the facts. Put the facts out and I mean all the facts not just what supports their agenda.
I want a standalone amendment to the Constitution that make it the law that Congress and the Presidents pay is voted on by the people. They should not be able to give themselves pay raises when neither side is getting anything done. The proposal that only side not get paid is B/S. Neither the House, Senate and President gets paid if there is not budget.
Last but not least, everyone needs to understand that according to the Constitution, which a lot of posters want use to support their positions, the House is task with coming up with a budget. They must be willing to compromise with the Senate and the President in order to get one put in place. And so must the Senate and the President be will to compromise. This our way or no way is not helping the American people. Compromise is not a bad thing.
Semper Fi
I don't think any of them ought ever be paid anytime. They have not earned it. They play only to their backers Let them pay them. Hell, they do anyway.
Ret_MSgt - Amen to all of that.
Who can disagree with Rivkin? Withholding the pay of legislators is "creative." It's also unconstitutional and they know it, so the proposal becomes symbolic. It's an appeal to all those of us who hate government and want to see Washington punished because it appears to have become ineffective in some ways. But the far right has a tendency to come up with manipulative gimmicks like this. And sometimes they work.
If you are a fan of extortion you should back this bill.
Will the congressional Republicans return all their pay from the prior term for their obstructionism of every major piece of legislation proposed by Obama, and particularly with job creation, thus slowing down the restoration and growth of our economy? They should! And will the congressional Republicans return their pay if they hold other congressional folks hostage to their austerity approach and engage in extreme cuts which will hurt primarily the middle class, workers, and the poor, and thus tank the economy both here and throughout the world? If they do, they should.
It's a sham because the GOP-controlled House will pass some ultra-conservative budget but the Democrat-controlled Senate will refuse to pass it. Basically this is a way for the Republican party to blackmail the Democratic senators by withholding their pay if they don't agree to the ultra-right wing nonsense of the Tea Party.
Plus, I don't think this could be done anyway unless there was a Constitutional amendment.
The Debt Ceiling Is The Debt Ceiling -- Not A Budget Or A Getting Paid Issue -- The GOPs Way To Address The Subject Is To CHANGE The Subject. We Spent The Money "Congress Authorized" so now we have to raise the money to pay for the Authorized Spending By Congress.
Playing Kick The Can & Change The Subject Games Doesn't Address The Debt Ceiling Issue GOPers -- No Gain Here Just More Lost Ground, Damage & Job Loses To Our Economy. The Debt Ceiling Issue Will Still Be There Waiting To Be Addressed.
The GOP Wants The Economy To Fail And Will Give Their All To Make It Fail -- Make Obama Fail -- I Guess Their One Massive Recession Just Wasn't Good Enough So They Are Trying To Create A Second Massive Recession. The Stock Market Is At Record Highs & Jobs Are Coming Back -- In Spite Of Them.
The Debt Ceiling Will Be Address Regardless Of What Games The GOP Plays -- They Know It & We Know It Yet They Just Keep Playing Their Games.
2014 will be the back breaker for these folks & their games.
If you want to see liberal slant in journalism, here it is!!! Why doesn't it state the reason this bill was introduced? The Democrats in the Senate have not brought a budget to vote in over 4 years!!! That is their primary job!!! When Obama submitted his budget, it didn't even receive one yay vote from a Democrat! The news media does not cover this. That is why the Republicans are trying to hold their feet to the fire. The Democrats would rather sit back and criticize the Republicans plan than make tough choices themselves. That is not leadership! In the long run, taxes will either need to go up 50% for everyone or the government will have to shrink. What do you want????
Hmmm... is it constitutional? Hey, do like they always do, withhold the pay and let the courts take years to decide and make sure to take any of the money to test it in court out of the funds being held. Why should this be any different?
Absolute guarantee that the Senate will ignore whatever the House sends them. And, that was probably Kantor's intent.
What's the point of suspending pay when most Senators are well off and won't suffer from pay freezes? There is no point.
Fix the budget or GTFO of politics.
Pay holdback should be retroactive for the past four years. They haven't done a darn thing to earn one red cent of it.
Laying the budget, or lack thereof, on the Senate, DNC, or President Obama, on the basis that the House/GOP has passed one is ridiculous. It's no different than someone who blindly promotes the DNC stating that Senate passed a budget, therefore the House/GOP is completely to blame or is acting unconstitutionally. Each Congressional body is dominated by one party, and each has shown a propensity to rubber stamp almost any legislation proposed by its members. To say that the "other guys" are acting unconstitutionally, unethically, or un-American just because they don't agree is ludicrous. It may make for good sound bites on the respective media outlets for a target zealotry but, that doesn't mean it's logical. Each group of fanatics is saying is simply, if you don't agree with my single-minded perspective then you're wrong. But of course the other guys can't just disagree, they have to be evil, unethical, un-Constitutional, un-American, or some other label that almost guarantees that no civil discourse can occur. All sides need to grow-up, man-up, and stop being so damn selfish and work towards the greater good. That's what America is supposed to be about.
The Catch 22 is that for the House bill to take effect, the Senate must approve of it, and Reid won't allow that to be brought to the floor for a voter.
I'd say, the "avoid going over the fiscal cliff" deal is dead and we just went over the cliff.
And, the market is up over 50 points for the day. I suspect Wall Street simply no longer pays any attention to Washington.
Oh yeash...and why wasn't this amendment to the "deal" discussed at the time of the "deal?" Boehner has lost control of House Republicans.
Is the House/Senate plan to hold the American People hostage over politics constitutional?
Hey, like Hussein and the democrat-communists care about the Constitution.
Any instances where they have violated the constitution?
OMG. Sure Butch. Ever read the Constitution? Start with the Federal Reserve and work your way to 2013.
So, in your obviously Constitutional scholarly and well thought out opinion, every person or idea that can be attributed to the Democratic party, going all the way back to the writing of the Constitution, is by definition un-Constitutional? And in contrast, all that is Republican is the embodiment of Constitutionality? Just trying to level set.
bill o rights,
There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the central bank system. It was brought about by legislation. Thus the central banks are legal and no way are unconstitutional which you are implying.
Holding pay is unconstitutional? Probably. But, then again, the GOP has failed to follow most of the rules they passed in the last congress, e.g., constitutional references for bills, posting on line for review, etc. Rules seem to be something the GOP holds the other guys to.
I think the only way this works is to terminate their pay now and do so as long as they don't approve a budget and extension of the debt ceiling. I also think we should turn off the heat and lights and let them negotiate this deal in a cold dark room by candlelight. Lets call it a citizens filibuster!
There is a statutory law for Congress to pass a budget by April 15th, but they seldom adhere to it, and there is no penalty for missing it.
A budget is a "plan to spend." It does not provide for the spending itself, which Constitutionally must be done (and is done) through appropriation bills.
And, there is a requirement for Congress to ensure the good faith and credit of the United States.
Introducing an amendment, at the last minute, that interjects the budget fight into the picture, essentially negates the deal Republicans made to extend the debt limit for three months and is further proof that Boehner has lost control of the House (noting that 85 Democrats voted for the amendment and 100 against).
Anyone - Democrat or Republican - who voted for this bill needs to be voted out of office in 2014.
A budget isn't being passed because Republicans keep trying to make attachments to cut Social Security and Medicare and other poison pills which is an issue settled by the Election.
Well, not to throw any water on the subject, however IT IS not the Republicians fault here at all. They have passed a budget every year in the House since 2010. House democrats failed to pass a budget when they controlled the house in 2009. The Senate has NOT even worked on a budget in any Senate committee since 2009. The Senate Majority Leader has refused to even allow a HOUSE approved budget to come before the Senate for discussion. In order for ANY compromise budget to be worked on between the House & Senate, the Senate must first work on a budget. This they refuse to do. They continue to shirk they duty. Now, NO WHERE in the US Constitution does it specifically say Congress has to pass a budget, HOWEVER, the Constitution does give Congress the power to create/pass laws. Hence they created the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which established the procedures/requirements for the modern budget process.
The Senate continues to operate in violation of this act every day they refuse to pass a budget. So, you may not like the Republicians & you may not care for their budgets, however they at least FOLLOW the Constitution & the Budget/Accounting Act of 1921 & produce a budget every year. If you want compromise you need the other side to put their plan forward. It's hard to compromise when 1 side refuses to play!
To start, let me be clear that I think both parties are acting childishly and that there's plenty of legitimate blame to go around. That said, from what I've seen/heard both sides have clearly stated that they won't pass budgets proposed by the other. Or more accurately, they both put in line items that they know the other side will balk against, and state ahead of time that they won't budge on those line items. In my opinion it becomes a matter of political ballet whether a budget is proposed or not if everyone knows that it will leave their respective Congressional body and go straight into the trashcan. As a matter of fact, if it were the Democrats who were continuously pushing out multi-thousand page budgets that they knew would fail some hardline conservative would use that as a talking point about how much money the Democrats were wasting. There's just no end. Rome had a good run, we should prepare for our quickly approaching antiquation.
Hmmm...my research indicates that your referenced budget act was updated by the 1974 Congressional Budget Act and that no penalty is included for failure to pass such a budget. The amendment to the debt ceiling increase bill would seem to be an attempt to introduce such a penalty.
There is a Constitutional Congressional duty to raise taxes and/or borrow money to pay the debts of the United States.
If I am not mistaken, House Republ;icans agreed to a three month extension of the debt ceiling limit, then held a caucus meeting, in Williamsberg, where this additional requirement was added...AFTER the deal was agreed to.
Reid ought to throw it back into their faces.
The American Public knows what's going on and Republican games of Obstruction continue even though they just lost the Second Presidential Election in a row.
There's only one cure now and that is to throw the Republicans out of the House in the next election then go after all the Republican Governors for Gerrymandering and Voter suppression that is still going on in earnest.
Keep up the good work and remember what my Uncle once told me, "Never wise up a sucker"...
P.S. Also, apparently the 1974 Congressional Budget Act ANTICIPATES Congress will not, from time to time, pass a budget and allows the House to begin work on Appropriation Bills after May 15th, in lieu of a budget.
This is simily welching on a deal. Not the first time House Republicans have gone down this road. They can't control their own caucus.
Vote the entire Party out in 2014.
Stone6, ted415784: I got it you are both democrap hacks. You don't like Republicians & you don't seem to care about the fact that AT LEAST they do their Constitutional/US Law duty & pass a budget. You may not like their budget & I really don't care if you do. But in order for the US Congress to come forward with a budget that a President will sign, Senate Democraps must first work on their own budget; pass it thru their own Senate & then take both bills go into a joint committee & work out a compromise. That is how the process is done. But until the Senate can get it's own act together don't blame Republicians for passing a bill thru their part of Congress.
Do you understand the difference between Constitutional Law and Statutory Law? Doesn't look like it. Read my posts again. There is no need for a budget to appropriate funding to pay our bills. A budget is a "plan," not an authorization. There is a Constitutional duty to pay those bills...through taxing or borrowing. The discussion over what existing spending to cut, may take place as the appropriation bills are passed.
True, there is a law...but no penalty...and a procedure in THAT law to move on to appropriations without a budget.
In 2012 the Senate Budget Committee rejected 4 House budget resolutions. The Senate then passed a Deeming Resolution on Mar 20, 2012 which set FY 2013 spending limits as per the sequestration deal made in 2011. Thus, the Senate Budget Committee does not need to pass a budget resolution. The current House bill to raise the debt limit and adding the ammendment that the Senate must pass a budget resolution is just political pandering. President Obama has indicated that his budget proposal for FY 2013 will be late but he will submit it as per law.
Interesting. More smoke and mirrors. So, the debt ceiling extension is "approved" and negotiation now begins on sequestration?
Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party of NO has got to go! The GOP/Teabeggers must be voted out completely in 2014. Time to get the vote out America.
I am no fan of the current Congress; they have been criminally derelict in their duty to the country expressed in the oath of office each one freely took.
But, all of these proposals on withholding pay, forcing resignations, etc are the very things this amendment(#27) was written to prevent. It is simply extortion to try to force the elected representatives to do what you want. The only way to force the Congress to do what you want is to elect the people who will do what you want.