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:
Ok. so pay them $1. They are still overpaid but what the heck can you do.
NO!! it's not constitutional.
What the Tea-Publicans do daily is not constitutional! It should be "Of the People, By the People, and For the People"
President Obama was elected by a majority of votes "BY the PEOPLE"
The will of the People should be Tea-Publicans focus!!!
Quote: President John Adams
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. The jaws of power and Greed are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free 'government' ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
NOTE TO AJ, let me remind you that the House of Representatives was also voted back into power by a majority of people. And WHY do you suppose that was? Let me tell you. It was to keep Obama from spending this country into oblivion, because THEY hold the purse strings. We have 3 EQUAL branches of government AJ, something I'm sure you are not aware of since you think Obama is the only one that counts. He is nothing more than 1/3 of our government.
AJ, learn your Constitution, the President is NOT elected "by the people" but rather the "Electoral College"
AJ: are you saying the votes cast by THE PEOPLE for Tea Party representatives don't count?
Only votes cast for Democrats count? So your democracy only allows for one party rule, no democracy for the others? Pretty neat trick if you can get away with it.
If we hit the new debt ceiling in May without a budget then all government pay should stop WE ARE FREAKN BROKE!
We are not broke!! Our money has no worth!!! Our money is worth what THEY!! say it's worth!!
With inflation unresolved by August 1971, and an election year looming, Nixon convened a summit of his economic advisers at Camp David. Nixon then announced temporary wage and price controls, allowed the dollar to float against other currencies, and ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. This meant our money was now worthless!!! Inflationary dollars!!
Paul Craig Roberts served in Reagan Treasury Dept, and also worked as editor at the Wall Street Journal. He knows about what he speaks. He described the horrendous economic situation for the US Economy. He puts blame on Wall Street and US Corporate executives who use Asian labor in outsourcing, rendering the US nation of workers poor.
I just can’t get over the Greed of the Rich!! They are not investing in America!! They’re going to wait till Tea-Publicans drive America into the ditch again, and pick up the pieces!!!
America’s problems started August 1971!!
These are things Republicans don't want you to remember!!
With inflation unresolved by August 1971, and an election year looming, Nixon convened a summit of his economic advisers at Camp David. Nixon then announced temporary wage and price controls, allowed the dollar to float against other currencies, and ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. This meant our money was now worthless!!! Inflationary dollars!!
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
During Reagan's administration, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%, with the rate reaching highs of 10.8% in 1982 and 10.4% in 1983. Reagan also earned the nickname "the Teflon President", in that public perceptions of him were not tarnished by the controversies that arose during his administration.
Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a B grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surpluses stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.
oh yeeah ----- clinton did all that all by himself ----- must have been one heck of an executive order, i guess.
i'll wager you don't even remember what cuts in spending were made in order to make that happen.
UJHOPI
Did you know in the 1950's the tax rate on Millionaires was 91%?
ARE THE RICH PAYING THERE FAIR SHARE?????????????
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Yes the tax rate was 91% but you could deduct almost everything you spent. Before you go spouting off Obama platitudes read a little. And while you're at it see what the rich peoples share of the taxes are. They are paying their "fair share" and then some. If you really want to bring in revenue (taxes), go after the ones that pay nothing and do away with the EIC. BTW, ever been hired by a poor person? Didn't think so.
It's probably unconstitutional, but it doesn't actually matter if it is constitutional or not if no one challenges it. Since the bad publicity for being the congress person to challenge it would probably do more to lose you an election than your salary is worth having on time, most congress men and women (and really we are talking about senators) are unlikely to challenge the law. Now, would it do any good? Probably not. Most Senators can afford the delay and probably wouldn't care much.
you betcha
A better question. Is the TGOP constitutional?
Maybe it's just me, but I think Congressional pay should be the median pay of all people in America. That's including all their "expense accounts" and perks and other things. No more travel budgets and free private jets and all that crap. Make them "get by" the same way the rest of us do, and maybe, *just maybe*, they'll start thinking about us instead of lobbies.
I like your thinking Matt; great idea. Time to give the "royalty" in government a dose of reality.
@Matt & CB: The royalty does not dwell in government. The royalty dwells in the Financial Markets, Banks, Insurance Corporations and offshore holdings.
Government legislators are the royalty's "hand mittens."
BOHICA.
RIP GOP.
excellent
I'll take it further change Public Servants to Volunteers and eliminate paying them altogether, because too many do not serve the country they serve themselves.
I'm sure withholding pay is just as Constitutional as Harry "Greed" not passing a budget in almost 4 years, when that's in the Constitution. Seems to me if Harry "Greed" can ignore the Constitution, and not do his job, he shouldn't get one red cent from the taxpayers. He isn't there to "party" he's there to work.
Forget about 'holding a paycheck' -- they should be automatically terminated. Fired. Gone. Maybe if they spent more time solving the problem instead of trying to get around it all the time we wouldn't have this discussion. Sad.
The stuck on stupid Republican Party hasn't functioned as human since 2006 The American people are being punished for throwing them out of power in both chambers. Unfortunately, low information voters put the whacked out Tea/Party in power in 2010. Until that crew is completely eliminated from the halls of Congress there will be no functioning. Instead of calling themselves the Tea Party, it should be called what it is. The Stuck on Stupid Party. Senators Johnson and Paul were glowing examples of Stuck on Stupid on Wednesday and Thursday.
This is just another GOP publicity stunt to make it appear that they are actually doing something!! In fact, they are just obstructing again! When they start talking and acting nice again, remember that this version of the GOP is BOUND AND DETERMINED to privatize SS and Medicare. No matter what they say, that is one of their most important goals. Do not lose sight of the fact that this is the reason they ran up the debt to begin with. They want th entitlement money to get into the hands of the same Wall St. crooks who crashed the economy!!
They remain the party of the wealthy and corporate elite who constantly gives Joe America the finger!
Second Term Begins With a Sweeping Agenda for Equality," ran the eight-column banner in which the Washington Post captured the essence of Obama's second inaugural. There he declared:
"What binds this nation together … what makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago."
Obama then quoted our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Our "union," Obama went on, was "founded on the principles of liberty and equality."
Nice prose – and transparent nonsense.
How could the American Union have been founded on the principle of equality, when "equality" is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Federalist Papers? How could equality be a founding principle of a nation, six of whose 13 original states had legalized slavery, and five of whose first seven presidents owned slaves all their lives?
What Obama preached in his inaugural was not historical truth but progressive propaganda, an Orwellian rewrite of American history.
Undeniably, the post-Civil War 13th, 14th and 15th amendments established an equality of constitutional rights. And from the Brown decision of 1954 through the civil rights acts of the 1960s, there was established an equality of civil rights. Black Americans were assured equal access to schools, public accommodations, the voting booth and housing. And Congress and the people overwhelmingly supported those laws.
Pat Buchanan's latest book — autographed! — the title says it all: "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"
But if the nation did not establish equality of constitutional rights until the 1860s and equality of civil rights until the 1960s, how can Obama claim that "equality" has been the feature that "makes us American" and "binds this nation together."
How can he say that our commitment to equality is what makes us "exceptional" – when every Western country believes in equal rights for all of its citizens, and it was the French Revolution, not ours, that elevated "egalite" to a founding principle.
And when he says equality "is the star that guides us still," exactly what kind of equality is Obama talking about?
Answer: The equality of which Obama speaks is not an equality of rights but an equality of results, an idea that dates not to the Founding Fathers, who would have been appalled by the idea, but to the 1960s.
This equality is not a founding principle of the republic. It is ideological contraband. For such equality can only be achieved at the price of freedom, our true founding principle.
That idea that "all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still," said Obama in his inaugural, "just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall."
Astonishing. The president is here making the brazen claim that the roots of modern feminism and gay rights can be traced straight back to the Founding Fathers and founding principles of our republic.
But how? The sanctum sanctorum of modern feminism is Roe v. Wade, the discovery of a constitutional right to an abortion. Yet, for every generation of Americans before 1973, abortion was a heinous crime.
And can anyone seriously argue that a barroom brawl with cops by homosexual patrons of Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in 1969 was but another battle in the long war for liberty begun at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill?
How could that be, when the author of the declaration Obama cites, Thomas Jefferson, believed homosexuality should be treated as rape, and George Washington ordered homosexuals drummed out of his army?
What Obama was attempting at the Capitol, with his repeated lifts from Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, was to portray his own and his party's egalitarianism as a continuation of the great cause that triumphed at Yorktown and Appomattox.
He is hijacking the American Revolution, claiming an ancestral lineage for his ideology that is utterly fraudulent and bogus.
Feminism, the gay-rights movement and the post-1965 civil-rights movement, with their demand for equality not simply of rights but of rewards, cannot be achieved without trampling on the freedoms for which the patriot fathers fought. And they cannot triumph without creating a permanent, mammoth and redistributionist state more powerful, intrusive and dictatorial than anything George III ever dreamed of.
The freedom of all Americans to compete academically, athletically, artistically and economically must inevitably result in an inequality of incomes, wealth and rewards.
Why? Because all men and women are by nature and nurture unequal. Some are talented, ambitious, industrious, lucky. And in a free society, such men and women will always reap a disproportionate share of fame and fortune.
The only way to equalize rewards is to take from those who have earned and give to those who have not. And that requires the kind of redistributionst regime the Founding Fathers would have risen up against.
As Obama's America rises, the old republic falls.
Read more at #crrvmyjl3LZwii1q.99
Blank entry.
The one thing the Repukes said that makes sense. I think that Congressmen and women should forfiet their pay-PERIOD. They should NOT receive any compensation whatsoever. Also they should be limited to 2 4 year terms,just like the President and RECEIVE NO PENSION OR HEALTHCARE. It should be an honor to serve, not a career. DON'T PAY THE CONGRESS AND SENATE ANYTHING....
Finally, I agree with 60's veteran. Now can we agree that Public Employee Unions need to pay into their own Pensions and Healthcare instead of all of it off the backs of Taxpayers?
Dung roi, dong y (a little Vietnamese of agreement since you claim to be a "60's Veteran"
Funny how certain Taxaholic/Spendaholic Dems try to hide behind the Constitution when it comes to THEIR pay but competely ignore the Natural Born Citzen Clause in the Constittution. Of course, those who know their 18th Century Constitutional History knows when the Founding Fathers were drafting the US Constution in 1787, they took the denfiition (source) of the term Natural Born Citizen from the Law of Nations (1758) which states a Natural Born Citizen is a child born to TWO (BOTH) parents who are already citizens at the time of the birth of the child. ..and the Constitution states one must be a Natural Born Citizen to qualify to be President or VP (an "or" clause for those living at the time when the Constitution was drafted). The Taxaholics/Spendaholics cry that with holding their undeserved pay as "unconstittutional" but totally ignore that we currently have an unqualifed Occupant illegally in the Oval Office. To be fair, Chester Arthur was also an illegal occupant of the Oval Office
The Supreme Court already ruled on that, Kurt; your argument is old, out of date and no longer valid...
The Current Supreme Court actually has NOT taken up the case.
However, let us look at PRIOR Supreme Courts Rulings regarding Case Law regarding "Natural Born Citizen";
Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents (plural) who were its citizens (plural), became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents (plural), within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' "Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
U. S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) , the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and Justice Gray quoted from Minor v. Happersett
The cases importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England and why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution) as the founding fathers needed to grandfather clause themselves in, in order to be president because they were British subjects. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen and NOT natural born. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of foreign (Chinese) parents, therefore was not 'natural born'.
Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the same as in prior case law that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural) AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen: On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866: Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)
Native Born citizen: This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, who emigrated to the United States in 1848 and was naturalized in 1854, and had a son who was born in St. Louis the following year. 4 years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached 20 years of age the German Government called upon him to report for military duty but his father then requested intervention of the American Legation on the grounds that his son was a "native citizen of the United States". On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen: U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]
U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof, and being that, Elg was born prior to the 19th Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, her status was still tied to that of her husband.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents. (plural)
This all clearly shows: That a person can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances:
1) Person was born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2) Person was born in the US mainland ("anchor babies"), or
3) Person was naturalized (like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who most know is not eligible for President).
To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born of two US citizen parents. (plural)
Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even IF he was born in the State of Hawaii because he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular)
For all you righties who (MISTAKENLY) claim that Obama has not proposed a budget:
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013 contains the Budget Message of the President, information on the President’s priorities, budget overviews organized by agency, and summary tables.
To download "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013" as a single PDF click here (256 pages, 4.6 MB)
WOW! So after 4 years in office he finally proposes a budget. All will be well now.
Does this truly matter? Our elected officals will continue to string the American people along.
What a dishonest, hypocritical, double standard. Has NBC ever done an article on the questioning the Constitutionality of Obama confiscating legally owned weapons. Nor will you, ever. NBC, you should stick to reporting sports scores. You don't have the integrity to report the news.
Exactly, dougjmiller, the 2nd Admendment > "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" does NBC not understand? ANY infringement of our right to bear Arms is UNconstitutional unless there is a proper Constitutinal admendment process on admending the 2nd admendment.
Probably not.
Would it be legal for the HOR to withhold a President's salary because he/she does not do as the HOR wishes? If so, our tripartite government would become a sham.
Ian, Our Government elected officials are NOT a sham for LACK of pay but rather a sham for grossly being overpaid in Salary, Benefits and Pensions. Elected Officials should not be getting such Pensions so burdensome to the Taxpayers. If they want a Pension, they need to contribute to their OWN Pension or some time of Retirement Plan in the Private Sector.
Ian,
As long as pay is withheld to be paid at a later date, then it should be constitutional. The only way it would be unconstitutional would be changing the amount they are paid annually. That can't be changed until 2015.
Dawgfan-4710266.........
By your reasoning, an embargo on Congressional pay until (say 2050) "should be constitutional".
Self-evidently, this is absurd. Consequently, any other such embargo schemes and schedules only differ by degree of absurdity.
Would you care to go on record here predicting either that such an embargo will happen or that, if it does, it will be upheld by our Judicial branch? Perhaps Congress can embargo the salaries of the SCOTUS Justices to guarantee THEIR compliance also.
Isn't it interesting that those (right-wingers) who loudly proclaim their "allegiance" to our Constitution are the ones most willing to distort its spirit through various Machiavellian chicaneries (e.g. disenfranchisement and now this)? Their devotion to democracy is about as stout as their devotion to their pseudo-Christianity. WE, the (majority of) the people, are not fooled.
what they need to do is pass a term limit provision, one six-year term, with no retirement golden parachute, no special healthcare programs, and nothing else that is not available to most Americans. They need to add a provision that calls for them to totally forfeit their pay for the entire year if they haven't PASSED a budget by the end of March each year.
Our founding fathers saw public service as a community service, not a lifetime of plundering and pillaging those they represent. If this was done there would be much less bickering and partisanship than we have today and we just might return our country to the status it deserves.
Another option would be to nuke all of Washington DC every four years, and the floggings would continue until the unwanted behavior ceased.
They would both be acceptable to me