Eleanor Finch
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, was added to reduce corruption in the legislative branch. It states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may take effect only after the next election of the House of Representatives. The amendment was first proposed in 1789, along with 11 other amendments, but it was not ratified until 1992, over 200 years later. The amendment's addition to the Constitution was met with some controversy, as scholars objected to the legality of the ratification process, arguing that there was never a magic moment of consensus between Congress and the states. However, Congress ultimately accepted the amendment as a valid addition, and it became part of the Constitution in May 1992.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Purpose | To reduce corruption in the legislative branch by requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect |
| Public opinion | The public can remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase |
| Ratification | Ratified in 1992, more than 202 years after its original proposal |
| Number of states ratified | 38 states |
| States that did not ratify | Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Pennsylvania |
| Legal challenges | The Supreme Court has not addressed its constitutionality |
| Scholarly objections | The structural constitutional ground that there was never a "magic moment" consensus of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 27th Amendment's aim to reduce corruption
The Twenty-seventh Amendment, or the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, was added to the United States Constitution to address concerns about congressional pay and the potential for corruption. The amendment aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by requiring an election before any changes to the compensation of Senators and Representatives can take effect.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment 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, it ensures that any increases or decreases in the salary of members of Congress can only occur after the next election of the House of Representatives. This amendment was designed to prevent Congress from arbitrarily increasing their own pay without the input of the electorate, thereby reducing the potential for corruption.
The issue of congressional salaries and the need for an amendment to address it were first raised by James Madison in 1789. Madison proposed twelve amendments to the federal Constitution, ten of which were ratified in 1791 and became the Bill of Rights. The amendment that became the Twenty-seventh Amendment was not initially ratified, and it lay dormant for many years. During this time, several states, including Ohio and Wyoming, ratified the amendment to express their dissatisfaction with Congress's attempts to increase their salaries.
In 1982, a student at the University of Texas in Austin, Gregory Watson, wrote a paper arguing for the ratification of the amendment to curtail political corruption. This sparked a nationwide campaign, and by 1992, enough states had ratified the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. The amendment was certified by the Archivist of the United States on May 18, 1992, more than 200 years after it was first proposed.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment has been upheld by courts, such as in Boehner v. Anderson, where it was ruled that a cost-of-living adjustment for Congress was valid because it took effect after the subsequent election. However, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the amendment's effect on such adjustments, and there are ongoing debates about the legality of its ratification process due to the time lag and changes in the size of Congress and the number of states since 1789.
Missouri's Tax Amendments: Changing the State Constitution
You may want to see also
The 1789 proposal and 1992 ratification
The Twenty-seventh Amendment, or the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, was first proposed by James Madison of Virginia in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed twelve amendments to the federal Constitution, ten of which were ratified in 1791 and became the federal Bill of Rights. The Twenty-seventh Amendment was one of the first proposed amendments, but it was not ratified at that time.
The amendment states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may only take effect after the next election of the House of Representatives. This was to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect. During the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, congressional pay was a central topic, with Benjamin Franklin arguing against public servants receiving salaries at all.
The amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old undergraduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. Watson later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. By May 5, 1992, the requisite 38 states had ratified the amendment, and it was certified by the Archivist of the United States as the Twenty-seventh Amendment on May 18, 1992, more than 202 years after its original proposal.
The ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is considered unusual because there was never a “magic moment" consensus of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states simultaneously agreeing to add the Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, Congress approved of the unusual process, which satisfied the textual requirements of Article V. On May 20, 1992, Congress voted by a unanimous vote of the Senate and a vote of 414 to 3 in favour of "accepting" the Twenty-seventh Amendment as having been validly approved.
Nevada Constitution: Amendments and Their Locations
You may want to see also
The legality of the ratification process
The Twenty-seventh Amendment, or the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, was added to the United States Constitution in 1992. 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 amendment was first proposed in 1789, along with 11 other amendments, but it was not ratified by enough states at that time.
The main objection to the legality of the ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is based on the interpretation of Article V. This article states that for an amendment to be added to the Constitution, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress must pass the proposed amendment, and three-quarters of the states must ratify it. Scholars who object to the legality of the Twenty-seventh Amendment's ratification argue that there needs to be a "'magic moment'" where there is a simultaneous consensus of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. They point out that the size of the legislative bodies and the number of states have changed significantly between 1789 and 1992, making it difficult to meet this requirement.
However, proponents of the amendment's legality argue that the terms of Article V were strictly satisfied, and Congress had to accept the amendment as a valid addition to the Constitution. They claim that there was a "magic moment" of popular national consensus, with a unanimous vote in the Senate and a 414-3 vote in the House of Representatives accepting the amendment in 1992. Additionally, 46 out of 50 states ratified the amendment, and no state tried to "unratify" it later.
The amendment's certification was challenged in court, with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that the first Congressional cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was in accordance with the amendment. On the other hand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that receiving a COLA does not grant members of Congress standing in federal court to challenge it. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the amendment's effect on COLAs or addressed its constitutionality.
In conclusion, the legality of the ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is a subject of debate among scholars, with some arguing for its validity based on the textual requirements of Article V and the existence of a "magic moment" of national consensus, while others object on structural constitutional grounds. The amendment's certification and effect have been tested in court, but the Supreme Court has not provided a definitive ruling on its constitutionality.
Amendments: Congress' Power to Change the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The impact on congressional behaviour
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, asserts 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. This amendment was proposed to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
While it is unclear whether the amendment directly influenced congressional behaviour, it did set a precedent for addressing concerns about congressional pay increases. The amendment's impact on congressional behaviour is speculative, but it may have deterred members of Congress from pursuing excessive pay raises, knowing that their constituents could hold them accountable through elections.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment has been invoked in legal challenges to congressional cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). In "Boehner v. Anderson," the United States Court of Appeals upheld the first COLA, agreeing that it complied with the amendment as it took effect after the subsequent election. However, in "Schaffer v. Clinton," the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disagreed, ruling that receiving a COLA does not grant members of Congress standing in federal court to challenge it.
The amendment has also been cited in discussions about congressional behaviour during government shutdowns. The "No Budget, No Pay Act" was proposed in 2012 and 2013 to prevent lawmakers from receiving pay during government shutdowns. While the bill garnered limited bipartisan support, it did not pass, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on its constitutionality.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment's ratification process was unusual and sparked debates about its legality. Some scholars objected, arguing that Article V implies simultaneous approval from Congress and three-quarters of the states. However, proponents of the amendment's validity pointed out that the textual requirements of Article V were met, and Congress unanimously accepted the amendment as validly approved. This set a precedent for interpreting Article V and managing the complex dynamics between congressional approval and state ratification.
Andrew Johnson's Opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment
You may want to see also
The challenges to its constitutionality
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may only take effect after the next election of the House of Representatives. This amendment was proposed to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment has faced several challenges to its constitutionality and legality:
The "Magic Moment" Argument
One of the main objections to the Twenty-seventh Amendment's legality is the "magic moment" argument, which centres around Article V of the Constitution. This article states that there should be a simultaneous approval of a proposed amendment by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Scholars who reject the Twenty-seventh Amendment argue that there was never a "magic moment" when a national and federal supermajority agreed to add the amendment. They point out that the size of the legislative bodies and the number of states have changed significantly between 1789 and 1992.
The Ratification Process
Speaker of the House Tom Foley initially challenged the legality of the amendment's ratification process, arguing that there was no congressional approval. He contended that the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, deviated from "historic tradition" by certifying the amendment without waiting for Congress to consider the ratification's validity, given the long time lapse since its proposal. However, Foley later changed his mind due to the amendment's popularity.
Supreme Court Challenges
The Twenty-seventh Amendment has also faced legal challenges in the courts. In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that congressional cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) were in accord with the amendment as they took effect after the election. However, the court declined to rule on the broader constitutionality of COLAs. In Schaffer v. Clinton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disagreed with Boehner, ruling that receiving a COLA does not grant Congress standing in federal court to challenge it. Despite these cases, the Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of the Twenty-seventh Amendment or its effect on COLAs.
The Corwin Amendment
Opponents of the Twenty-seventh Amendment also raise the example of the Corwin Amendment, passed by Congress in 1861 to preserve slavery in certain states. This amendment never had a time limit for its ratification, and critics argue that it could theoretically be resurrected and ratified by state action without a new attempt to get two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to approve it. This is seen as a potential consequence of validating the Twenty-seventh Amendment's unusual ratification process.
Amendment History: The Second Amendment's Origin Story
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may take effect only after the next election of the House of Representatives.
The idea behind the amendment is to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by allowing the public to remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment was certified by the Archivist of the United States on May 18, 1992, and became part of the Constitution, effective May 5, 1992.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment was one of the first amendments proposed in 1789 by James Madison, along with 11 other amendments (Articles I-XII). However, it was not ratified by enough states at that time and was largely forgotten until 1982 when a student, Gregory Watson, wrote a paper about it, sparking a nationwide campaign for its ratification.
