Written by Biloxi
Today's posting focuses on the 27th Amendment. It reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
It means that prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of Congress from taking effect until the beginning of the next set of terms of office for the lawmakers. The U.S. Constitution had amendments and had been ratified in 1992.
And what about the cost of living adjustments that the lawmakers have been receiving first of the year?
From Wikipedia:
Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs) have been upheld against legal challenges based on this amendment. In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Twenty-seventh Amendment does not affect annual COLAs. In Schaffer v. Clinton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that receiving such a COLA does not grant members of the Congress standing in federal court to challenge that COLA; the Supreme Court did not hear either case and so has never ruled on this amendment's effect on such COLAs.
The question should be asked has Congress been giving themselves raises and not following proper procedures according to the 27th amendment? Notice that COLA was never outline in the 27th Amendment in 1789.
Today's posting focuses on the 27th Amendment. It reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
It means that prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of Congress from taking effect until the beginning of the next set of terms of office for the lawmakers. The U.S. Constitution had amendments and had been ratified in 1992.
And what about the cost of living adjustments that the lawmakers have been receiving first of the year?
From Wikipedia:
Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs) have been upheld against legal challenges based on this amendment. In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Twenty-seventh Amendment does not affect annual COLAs. In Schaffer v. Clinton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that receiving such a COLA does not grant members of the Congress standing in federal court to challenge that COLA; the Supreme Court did not hear either case and so has never ruled on this amendment's effect on such COLAs.
The question should be asked has Congress been giving themselves raises and not following proper procedures according to the 27th amendment? Notice that COLA was never outline in the 27th Amendment in 1789.
1 comment:
Makes sence as Pelosi saw Americans didn't know the Constitutional growns to impeach Bush/Cheney. Pelosi got her pay off given to her husband by the GOP in Contracts. Now slowly even the Constitution has been dismanteled and it will continue until Americans question the actions. Now we see why the raises in salary were quickly pass with much being said and look for more broken laws. Americans said nothing as Law Makers reduced their work week to three days and if the GOP get back power they will have a one day work week or mail in their vote.
Post a Comment