Malcolm Rivera
In 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, more than 200 years after it was first proposed. The amendment, which was proposed by a college student in a term paper, aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect. This means that a sitting Congress cannot give itself a raise or cut its pay during its current session. While the amendment was certified by the Archivist of the United States on May 18, 1992, there was some debate about the legality of the ratification process, as it had been a long time since the amendment was first proposed.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of revision | May 5, 1992 |
| Amendment | Twenty-seventh Amendment |
| Purpose | To reduce corruption in the legislative branch |
| Mechanism | Requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase |
| Rationale | Sitting Congress cannot give itself a raise during its current session |
| Certification | Don W. Wilson, Archivist of the United States |
| Certification Date | May 18, 1992 |
| Number of States Ratifying | 38 |
| Key States | Michigan, Alabama, New Jersey |
| Professor | Sharon Waite |
| Student | Gregory Watson |
| Grade | C |
| Law School | New York Law School |
| Professor | Richard B. Bernstein |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Twenty-seventh Amendment
The amendment was designed to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase. It gives the people a say in Congress members' salaries, holding them accountable to their constituents.
The process of ratifying the Twenty-seventh Amendment was not without controversy. In 1992, Michigan and New Jersey raced to be the 38th state to ratify, with Michigan achieving this on May 7, 1992. However, it was later discovered that Kentucky had ratified the amendment during its initial month of statehood, making Alabama the 38th state to ratify on May 5, 1992. The Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, certified the amendment on May 18, 1992, but faced criticism from Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that he deviated from "historic tradition" by not waiting for Congress to consider the ratification's validity.
Despite the amendment becoming law, it is unclear whether it produced any change in congressional behaviour.
Building a Perfect Union: The Constitutional Guide
You may want to see also
Reducing corruption in the legislative branch
On May 5, 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, aiming to reduce corruption in the legislative branch. This amendment requires an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect, allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
Corruption in the legislative branch undermines democracy and good governance, reduces accountability, and distorts representation in policymaking. To reduce corruption in the legislative branch, several measures can be implemented:
Transparency and Accountability
Promoting transparency and accountability in government processes is essential. This includes ensuring freedom of information and strengthening investigative reporting and freedom of the press. The public's right to know and access information about government activities helps deter corruption. Additionally, establishing strong anti-corruption regimes that balance prevention and enforcement, with a focus on both internal and external oversight, is crucial. External oversight can include legislative bodies, journalistic organizations, and citizen engagement.
Effective Law Enforcement and Legal Frameworks
Developing and implementing robust legal frameworks and effective law enforcement mechanisms is vital. This includes strengthening the capacity to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate corruption-related crimes. Effective enforcement approaches are supported by an independent and efficient court system. Civil society can also play a role through initiatives like Transparency International's "Unmask the Corrupt" campaign.
Financial Transparency and International Cooperation
Financial transparency is critical in reducing corruption. Reforms focusing on improving financial management and strengthening auditing agencies have proven effective. Disclosure of budget information prevents waste and misappropriation of resources. Additionally, international cooperation is essential to combat corruption. Major financial centers should implement measures to prevent the absorption of illicit funds and proceeds from corruption. The ability to track and recover stolen public assets is enhanced through international collaboration.
Education and Prevention
Educational initiatives and preventive measures are crucial. This includes promoting ethical practices, raising awareness about the negative impacts of corruption, and fostering a culture of integrity. Research suggests that corruption can be contagious, so it is essential to address it proactively. Additionally, economic sanctions and visa restrictions can be used to block corrupt officials from accessing their ill-gotten gains and visiting certain countries.
Strengthening Institutions
Strong institutions are vital to reducing corruption in the legislative branch. This includes enhancing the capacity of legislative bodies, improving their procedures, and ensuring adequate resources. Independent legislative bodies, such as inspectors general, play a crucial role in oversight and accountability.
Constitutions with Freedom of Speech: A Global Overview
You may want to see also
Congress pay changes
On May 7, 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, with the aim of reducing corruption in the legislative branch. The amendment states that "no law varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives has intervened". In other words, any changes to the pay of members of Congress cannot come into force until after the next election. This was intended to give the public the opportunity to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment was first proposed on September 25, 1789, by James Madison, and was finally ratified over 202 years later. The long delay was due to the requirement that three-quarters of the states ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. By May 5, 1992, the requisite 38 states had ratified the amendment, with Michigan believed to be the 38th state. However, it later came to light that the Kentucky General Assembly had also ratified the amendment, making Alabama the 38th state.
The amendment was partly inspired by an undergraduate research paper written by Gregory Watson, then a student at the University of Texas in Austin. Watson received a "C" grade for his paper, with his professor saying that the argument that the amendment was still pending was not convincing. Undeterred, Watson started a new push for ratification with a letter-writing campaign to state legislatures.
Following the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, the process established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which automatically adjusted member pay according to a formula, was challenged in federal court. The court held that the amendment did not apply to these automatic annual adjustments, as Congress had already effectively voted on future adjustments when the automatic mechanism was established.
Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified, there have been several attempts to change the pay of members of Congress. In 1994, the Senate rejected an amendment to reduce member pay immediately by 15%. Another amendment, which stated that any member who voted to reduce pay should return the money to the U.S. Treasury, was withdrawn. In 1993, members of Congress received an annual adjustment of 3.2%, increasing pay from $129,500 to $133,600.
The issue of congressional pay continues to be a subject of debate. Some argue that increasing salaries would make Congress more accessible to people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and reduce the influence of lobbyists and PACS. Others have suggested alternative approaches, such as banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after their term ends and making their finances completely transparent.
The Constitution's Journey: From Idea to Document
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Amendment certification
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII), also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, was certified by the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, on May 18, 1992. This certification marked the completion of the amendment's ratification process, which had begun over 200 years earlier.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment addresses the issue of congressional pay and aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch. It states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress can only take effect after the next election of the House of Representatives. The public can thus remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
The long delay between the proposal and ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment resulted in some controversy regarding the certification process. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia criticised Archivist Wilson for certifying the amendment without congressional approval, arguing that he had deviated from "historic tradition". However, Wilson maintained that his signature was unnecessary, as it was the votes of three-fourths of the states that added the amendment to the Constitution.
The certification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is a significant milestone in the history of the United States Constitution. It highlights the enduring relevance of the nation's founding document and the dedication of individuals like Gregory Watson, whose undergraduate research paper in 1982 helped revive the push for ratification. The amendment's certification serves as a reminder of the power of citizen advocacy and the ongoing evolution of constitutional law.
The Weimar Republic's Constitution: Effective or Not?
You may want to see also
Amendment criticism
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1992, has faced some criticism and controversy. One of the main points of contention is the process by which the amendment was certified. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, certified that the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 38 states. However, this certification was not without controversy. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia sharply criticised Wilson for deviating from "historic tradition" by certifying the amendment without first obtaining congressional approval. Despite Byrd's support for the amendment itself, he and other members of Congress took issue with the process by which it was certified.
Another criticism of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is the lack of publicity and awareness surrounding it. Since its ratification in 1992, the amendment has received very little attention or publicity, aside from occasional news stories about its origins and the efforts of Gregory Watson, the University of Texas at Austin student whose undergraduate research paper formed the foundation for the movement to ratify the amendment. The amendment's lack of publicity may contribute to a lack of understanding or awareness among the public regarding its provisions and significance.
In addition to the criticisms of the certification process and lack of publicity, there are also questions about the amendment's effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose of reducing corruption in the legislative branch. It is unclear whether the Twenty-seventh Amendment has led to any significant changes in congressional behaviour. The amendment's impact on curbing congressional salary increases or addressing corruption remains uncertain, and it may not have had the substantial impact that its proponents had hoped for.
Furthermore, some critics have pointed out potential loopholes or limitations in the amendment's implementation. For example, during the 2014 congressional budget debate, the idea of linking congressional pay to the budget debate emerged. Critics quickly noted that such a move could be seen as “varying” the compensation for members of Congress, even if temporarily, which would seemingly contradict the amendment's provisions. The interpretation of "varying compensation" and the potential for loopholes or unintended consequences has been a point of discussion and criticism regarding the amendment's effectiveness.
While the Twenty-seventh Amendment aimed to address concerns about congressional salary increases and reduce corruption, the criticism surrounding its certification process, lack of publicity, uncertain effectiveness, and potential loopholes underscores the ongoing debates and complexities surrounding this amendment to the United States Constitution.
Constitution and Hit Points: Understanding the Link
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Twenty-seventh Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, states that "no law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened". In other words, Congress cannot give itself a pay rise or pay cut during its current session.
The amendment was first proposed by James Madison in 1789, along with several other amendments that became the Bill of Rights. However, it was largely forgotten about until 1982, when University of Texas student Gregory Watson wrote a research paper on it. Watson received a C grade for his paper, with his professor calling the idea a "dead letter issue". However, Watson persevered and launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.
It is unclear whether the amendment has had any impact on Congressional behaviour. However, in 2014, during a fight in Congress over the federal government's budget, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was invoked by journalists and academics who argued that linking congressional pay to the budget debate would be a direct violation of the amendment.
