Framers of constitution alive and well

United States Constitution ^ | 1/1/1992 | United States Congress

[SusanD]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]

[SusanD]

The constitution was last amended in 1992. That means that people sitting in the congress today, like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and robert Byrd, are framers of the constitution. This fact has importance in the "original intent" versus judicial activism debate. If people want the constitution changed, they can amend it if they have enough votes. It is not unrealistic to demand that the constitution be amended only by the method provided in the document, it is difficult (and should be) but not impossible. It was done as recently as 1992. The reason the left wants to appoint activist judges who will discern new meanings never put there is that they don't have the votes to change the constitution. Thus, the urge to judicial activism is clearly anti-democratic and seeks to impose judicial tyranny on the people.

[coconutt2000]

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Passed September 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

[coconutt2000]

Source: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h924.html

The 27th Amendment is intended to prevent members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during the course of a session. This is a refinement of Article I, Section 6, the provision granting Congress the authority to establish compensation for its membership.

James Madison introduced this idea to the First Congress, meeting in New York City in the fall of 1789. Congress passed the proposed amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote, but three-fourths of the states did not ratify the measure until 1992. Over the years various states would approve the proposal, but new states had joined the Union, keeping the ratification standard out of reach.

Public displeasure with Congressional pay raises in the 1980s sparked a revival of interest in the measure. In 1992 Michigan became the 38th state to ratify, pushing support past the three-fourths requirement.

Later amendment proposals have often carried an expiration date. Those measures that cannot achieve the mandated three-fourths ratification vote by the states are voided; they can be revived only by restarting the entire process.

---

As you can see, your argument has a major hole in it. None of the current legislators were present in the passing of the 27th Amendment through our legislature.

[coconutt2000]

To properly and logically oppose judicial activism, a simple look at the Constitution's establishment of the judicial powers will point out that the judiciary holds very little power, and is constrained to the supreme laws of the land, which are the U.S. Constitution and the treaties entered into thereof.

Judicial legislation is not a power of the judiciary.

[StonyBurk]

ah but the relevance of the two distinct groups- as seen in
their dis-similar idiological comport tends render the arguement silly. I shudder to think any group that is so
affected by the extraConstitutional deconstruciton called
the United Nations treaty of 1945 could compare to those who
wrote and ratified our US Constitution-on any level.However
the point made of the Constitutional process of amending
the Constitution -by the process encoded in that document is well taken. Problem is our Courts follow their own
independent construction and have since FDR increasingly
abused and even ignored the Constitution they now believe is merely what they say it is.A conundrum to be sure.

[SusanD]

Are you saying that none of the legislators who sat in Michigan in 1992 are still alive? Who are the framers? I say they are the people who voted for the measures that become part of the constitution. I haven't conducted a study but I bet that some of the people who voted (rather yea or nay)in the Michigan legislature are still alive. So you are right, I didn't research exactly how this measure was introduced and passed but I did see that it didn't pass and become a part of the constitution until 13 years ago. My point is exactly right. If you want to change the constitution AMEND it. Don't have individual judges or even 9 supremes decide that they see something in the constitution which was never there.

[coconutt2000]

Whether it was Michigan or Alabama that finally pushed the 27th Amendment is irrelevant to your point. None of the legislators alive today who participated in the ratification of that amendment, either State or Federal, can be given the status of the Framers.

You can say that they participated in the process of amending the Constitution, but the man who crafted that particular amendment has been dead for about 169 years. He was also a Framer and original signer of the Constitution. James Madison.

There are some things you should leave alone, and the elevated status of the wise men who gave us the Constitution and made it amendable is one of those things.

The Constitution, as I already said, contains the necessary language for limiting the power of the courts, because the courts have already overstepped their legitimate powers.

The fix for the courts will be in the appointing of strict Constitutionalists to the bench. Trying to legislate a solution to the liberal courts will endanger the balance built into the Constitution.

(Impeachment of Judges is another way to lessen the number of liberals sitting, and opening up positions for new appointments. Also to be pursued carefully as this can be used against us just as easily.

We need to increase our Control in the House and the Senate, and thereby increase our chances of passing proper legislation and judicial appointments. But amending the Constitution? No, too drastic and there is no clear reason for such a drastic measure.)

[SusanD]

My point is not that we should amend the constitution, and, for that matter, I could have referred to the amendment requiring states to allow 18 year olds to vote. Some of the people who voted on that amendment are still around also. My point is not that the constitution should be amended but that judges who are looking for penumbras and hidden rights and what the framers would have done if they lived today are themselves, singlehandedly or with the help of the Supreme court, amending the constitution by their decisions. And unless you think that writing bad decisions is a high crime or misdemeanor. The exact language is "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This language applies to federal judges who sit for life under the current system. Now you can argue that article III of the constitution which provides, in part that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." adds another category, good behavior. If you allow bad decisions to become the standard for good behavior, then the independence of the judiciary is abolished.

[coconutt2000]

And now you're starting to make some sense. I just wanted to get you over the little bump of trying to use your original premise to support your argument.

It wasn't working.

Your new argument works fine. Now go out and spread the word.