Posted on 01/24/2013 9:00:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The House of Representatives approved Wednesday, 285-144, a three-month extension of the debt limit. Included in that bill was a "no budget, no pay" provision, which requires members of Congress to pass a budget, or they will not receive a salary. Some of the lawmakers who voted against the bill say that the "no budget, no pay" provision violates the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The 27th Amendment states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." This amendment essentially says that if Congress changes its salary, or any other parts of its compensation, those changes will not go into effect until after the next election. Since the "no budget, no pay" law would change the compensation for lawmakers, by making it $0, it would violate this amendment, opponents claim.
"The American people rightfully expect Congress to do its job, and that includes passing a budget." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in a Wednesday statement. "However, while I support the concept of the 'No Budget, No Pay' bill, the 27th Amendment to our Constitution specifically says 'No law, varying the compensation for services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect' until after an intervening election. The language is clear and unambiguous. I support the spirit of the bill, but it did not meet constitutional standards.
"Each member takes their own oath of fidelity to the Constitution, and I respect the view of my colleagues who disagree. In order to keep my oath to the Constitution, my only choice was to vote no."
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told Fox News Monday that he would vote against the bill for the same reason. "I understand the sentiment behind 'no budget, no pay ... that said ... it appears that the 27th Amendment does not permit Congress to alter its pay in the midst of a current session," Jeffries said.
The 27th Amendment has an interesting history of citizen activism.
The 27th Amendment, authored by James Madison, was one of the first 12 amendments proposed by the 1st Congress. Ten of those amendments were ratified shortly after by the original 13 states. Those 10 amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.
In 1982, Gregory Watson wrote a paper about the amendment for his American government class at the University of Texas at Austin. Though he received a "C" on the paper, Watson decided the amendment should be ratified and began a personal quest to get enough states to ratify it so that it would be added to the Constitution.
Ten years later, in 1992, Watson succeeded. Madison's previously forgotten amendment was added to the Constitution. It was the last time the Constitution was amended
/johnny
‘No Budget’ is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Don’t withhold Reid’s pay.. IMPEACH HIM FOR VIOLATING HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
If we can install a president with a fake Hawaii BC, then what else can also be ignored from the constitution?
HA-HA, read carefully,
It only delays their pay it doesn’t cut any of it.
So this argument is DOA.
The bill does not alter the rate of compensation. It merely sets up a condition on when and under what conditions the compensation will be issued.
Its unconstitutional imo. And given that voters don’t know the Constitution, “No budget, no pay” is a publicity stunt imo.
This is actually quite simple. The “compensation for services...” is not being changed. Just the compensation for NO services!
This is actually quite simple. The “compensation for services...” is not being changed. Just the compensation for NO services!
They should just be fired.
They are not doing their job.
Of course we will get a large hearing over why no one was going in the Hall of Fame,
Investigate why Hockey started late
And countless other ‘important issues - oh yes, there will definitely be some legislation inre the Notre Dame football player - not that Katy Couric got involved.
Maybe the guy will show up with his NEW invisible girl friend?
Of course we laugh at the invisible girl friend yet have NO comment over the invisible money these guys are spending.
Always marveled over how a pol will say ‘We are broke’ etc then a few months later there is a 10 million buck surplus, then when agencies want it, it mysteriously disappears until the pol needs another bump...
Being a business owner, the shelf life of my bookkeeper would be over the day he FOUND 10 mill laying around, real or imagined.
“No budget, no pay” is a publicity stunt imo.
Just another “theatrics ploy” by these morons. It’s not unlike the so-called “super committee” that was supposed to resolve the debt crisis. These are all simply mechanisms for avoiding doing the hard work required to fix a mess that they created. You have to wonder just how long they can keep kicking the can down the road.
“... I support the spirit of the bill, but it did not meet constitutional standards.”
SINCE WHEN did the congresscritter offal CARE about constitutionality????
Throw them ALL into the Boston Port (as opposed to tea)!
And, let’s STOP paying their salaries!
It’s another gimmick anyway. The pay goes into an escrow account, probably a high interest one and when a budget is reached they get the back pay. That’s not “NO PAY”.
As far as I’m concerned they should get NO pay until the national debt is paid.
Sorry folks—it would be unconstitutional. But we could cut back the pay to 1950s levels?
True it does not change their pay in any way. It just requires them to approve the budget before receiving it. There is nothing in the constitution that states when they must receive it.
Article I of the constitution requires a budget. So how could “no budget no pay” be unconstitutional. Technically there is no money to pay their salaries.
And I think they get the remainder of their pay at the end of the session next year regardless.
Plus I think its based on each house passing their own budget resolution (not a passed budget in law) and so just those House members pay is delayed for the House that doesnt pass one, not the other.
Its a symbolic act that counters the high congress disapproval and it gives the House a reason to go out on a limb with a resolution when the Senate refuses.
There is nothing in the Constitution regarding budgets. The budget requirement under the law stems from the Budget act of 1974.
And the other day Newt addressed the pay issue. He said you couldn’t anybody’s pay because of the Constitution, but it can be withheld until the end of the session or perhaps the end of the congress (can’t remember exactly what he said). So that’s either January 2014 or at the latest January 2015. No budget-no pay does have teeth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
