[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000188","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/27\/essays\/189\/congressional-compensation\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003ECongressional Compensation\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment XXVII\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed the\u0026nbsp;Congressional Compensation Amendment as one\u0026nbsp;of many that he presented to the House of Representatives\u0026nbsp;that day. After debate, the House of Representatives\u0026nbsp;and the Senate approved the proposed\u0026nbsp;amendment and forwarded it and eleven others to\u0026nbsp;the states. Only six states ratified it, well short of the\u0026nbsp;three-quarters requirement, however, and thus it did\u0026nbsp;not become part of the Bill of Rights. The proposed\u0026nbsp;amendment languished for almost two hundred\u0026nbsp;years before becoming the object of a successful ratification\u0026nbsp;campaign in the 1980s, ultimately resulting\u0026nbsp;in its formal acceptance by Congress as the Twenty-seventh\u0026nbsp;Amendment on May 20, 1992.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAt the Constitutional Convention, the Framers\u0026nbsp;heatedly debated the question of whether individual\u0026nbsp;states or the new national government would\u0026nbsp;compensate elected representatives. The Compensation\u0026nbsp;Clause of Article I, Section 6, was the result,\u0026nbsp;providing that the central government would pay\u0026nbsp;the representatives from the federal treasury as\u0026nbsp;established by federal law.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Anti-Federalists and others at state\u0026nbsp;ratifying conventions found this compensation\u0026nbsp;arrangement deeply worrisome; because members\u0026nbsp;of Congress would enact the very law that set\u0026nbsp;their salaries, there would be no check on Congress\u2019s\u0026nbsp;ability to enrich itself. It was a classic case\u0026nbsp;of the danger of self-dealing corruption. Madison\u0026nbsp;responded to that criticism with the proposed\u0026nbsp;Compensation Amendment, which would prevent\u0026nbsp;representatives from granting themselves a\u0026nbsp;pay raise that would take effect during the term\u0026nbsp;in which they sat. Instead, Congress would be\u0026nbsp;able to pass the pay raise only prospectively and\u0026nbsp;would thereby face the electorate before it could\u0026nbsp;take effect. Madison believed the amendment\u0026nbsp;was necessary because of the \u201cseeming impropriety\u0026nbsp;in leaving any set of men without controul to\u0026nbsp;put their hand into the public coffers, to take out\u0026nbsp;money to put in their pockets.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESome legal scholars have speculated that\u0026nbsp;the amendment failed at the time it was first\u0026nbsp;proposed because state legislators, to whom the\u0026nbsp;ratification question was presented, might have\u0026nbsp;feared that, once ratified, a similar initiative\u0026nbsp;might be pushed regarding their own compensation.\u0026nbsp;Anti-Federalists who had proposed the\u0026nbsp;idea during the Constitution\u2019s ratification debates\u0026nbsp;were not so troubled, however, easily distinguishing\u0026nbsp;the local legislator from the national. The\u0026nbsp;former, the Anti-Federalist Cornelius wrote, was\u0026nbsp;chosen annually, in small districts, and \u201csent but\u0026nbsp;a small distance\u201d from his home, whereas the\u0026nbsp;latter was \u201cfar removed, and long detained, from\u0026nbsp;the view of their constituents.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe issue of congressional compensation\u0026nbsp;was the subject of periodic legislation and attendant\u0026nbsp;political maneuvering in succeeding years.\u0026nbsp;Particularly unpopular with the electorate was\u0026nbsp;the notorious \u201cSalary Grab\u201d Act of 1873, which\u0026nbsp;not only granted a pay raise to legislators but also\u0026nbsp;made it retroactive. One of the Ohio General\u0026nbsp;Assembly\u2019s responses to the act was ratification\u0026nbsp;of the dormant Compensation Amendment, thus\u0026nbsp;becoming the seventh state to do so, eighty-four\u0026nbsp;years after Maryland, which was the first state\u0026nbsp;to ratify.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EOver a century later, the amendment became\u0026nbsp;the object of a grassroots ratification campaign\u0026nbsp;initiated by a college undergraduate who had\u0026nbsp;authored a term paper on the subject in 1982.\u0026nbsp;Despite widespread doubt about the propriety of\u0026nbsp;actually adopting the long-dormant amendment\u0026nbsp;should it ever be fully ratified, the ratification\u0026nbsp;campaign gathered momentum. On May 7, 1992,\u0026nbsp;Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify\u0026nbsp;the Compensation Amendment, completing the\u0026nbsp;process initiated over two hundred years earlier\u0026nbsp;by the First Congress in 1789.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe unique history of the Compensation\u0026nbsp;Amendment raised initial questions about the\u0026nbsp;validity of its ratification. In \u003Cem\u003EColeman v. Miller\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/em\u003E(1939), the Supreme Court declared that disputes\u0026nbsp;about ratification procedures and the time\u0026nbsp;within which an amendment could be ratified\u0026nbsp;were political questions assigned to the province\u0026nbsp;of the legislative branch under Article V of the\u0026nbsp;Constitution and, therefore, not subject to adjudication\u0026nbsp;by the federal courts. \u003Cem\u003EColeman\u003C\/em\u003E seemed\u0026nbsp;to envision some sort of formal congressional\u0026nbsp;review of the constitutional validity of a fully\u0026nbsp;ratified amendment prior to its official addition\u0026nbsp;to the Constitution. Despite initial comments\u0026nbsp;about formal review by rather stunned federal\u0026nbsp;legislators following Michigan\u2019s ratifying vote on\u0026nbsp;May 7, 1992, Congress, sensing the public mood,\u0026nbsp;scheduled no formal hearings on the Compensation\u0026nbsp;Amendment. On May 18, 1992, the National\u0026nbsp;Archivist certified the amendment. Two days\u0026nbsp;later, overwhelming majorities in both chambers\u0026nbsp;of Congress confirmed the Twenty-seventh\u0026nbsp;Amendment. The Office of Legal Counsel of the\u0026nbsp;Department of Justice also issued an opinion\u0026nbsp;declaring that, despite the long passage in time,\u0026nbsp;the ratification of the amendment was valid.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe first challenge arising under the\u0026nbsp;amendment was brought by Representative\u0026nbsp;John Boehner, who claimed that the automatic\u0026nbsp;Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) provided\u0026nbsp;to Congress under the Ethics Reform Act of\u0026nbsp;1989 amounted to an increase in compensation\u0026nbsp;without an intervening election. Assuming\u0026nbsp;that the Twenty-seventh Amendment applied\u0026nbsp;to laws adopted before it was ratified, the Court\u0026nbsp;of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\u0026nbsp;nevertheless rejected the claim, noting that \u201cthe\u0026nbsp;COLA provision of the Ethics Reform Act of\u0026nbsp;1989 is constitutional because it did not cause\u0026nbsp;any adjustment to congressional compensation\u0026nbsp;until after the election of 1990 and the seating\u0026nbsp;of the new Congress.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EBoehner v. Anderson\u003C\/em\u003E (D.C.\u0026nbsp;Cir. 1994).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAnother challenge to the COLA provision in\u0026nbsp;federal court centered on the question of standing.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003ESchaffer v. Clinton\u003C\/em\u003E (2001). Outside of Establishment\u0026nbsp;Clause cases, \u003Cem\u003Esee Flast v. Cohen\u003C\/em\u003E (1968),\u0026nbsp;the federal courts almost never recognize a taxpayer\u2019s\u0026nbsp;standing to contest a spending provision\u0026nbsp;of a law. Consequently, the district court denied\u0026nbsp;standing to three of the plaintiffs, who came to\u0026nbsp;the court as taxpayers. However, the district court\u0026nbsp;reached the merits for the remaining plaintiff,\u0026nbsp;Representative Bob Schaffer, whose salary had\u0026nbsp;been increased under the statute (to the detriment,\u0026nbsp;he asserted, of his anti-tax reputation).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EOn appeal, the Tenth Circuit declined to\u0026nbsp;reach the merits, finding instead that Representative\u0026nbsp;Schaffer also lacked standing, noting that\u0026nbsp;\u201cthe standing inquiry must be \u2018especially rigorous\u2019\u201d\u0026nbsp;when the dispute involves two branches\u0026nbsp;of government. The circuit court held that the\u0026nbsp;congressman \u201cwas not injured for standing purposes\u0026nbsp;simply because he received a higher salary.\u201d\u0026nbsp;If followed by later courts\u2014the Supreme\u0026nbsp;Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari\u0026nbsp;in the case\u2014the Tenth Circuit\u2019s reasoning would\u0026nbsp;appear to foreclose standing to any plaintiff\u0026nbsp;challenging a statute under the Twenty-seventh\u0026nbsp;Amendment. Ironically, after lying dormant for\u0026nbsp;two hundred years, this amendment may now\u0026nbsp;have been put back to sleep. Nevertheless, it is\u0026nbsp;clear that Congress still has the option of voluntarily\u0026nbsp;abiding by the amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/John_Eastman.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.chapman.edu\/law\/faculty\/eastman.asp\u0022\u003EJohn C. Eastman\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Henry Salvatori Professor of Law \u0026amp; Community Service, Chapman University School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000188-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000188-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000188-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000188-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERichard B. Bernstein, \u003Ci\u003EThe Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-seventh Amendment\u003C\/i\u003E, 22 Fordham L. Rev. 497 (1992)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGary Lawson,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EThe Constitution\u0027s Congress\u003C\/em\u003E, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 399 (2009)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOffice of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EMemorandum Opinion: Congressional Pay Amendment,\u003C\/em\u003E November 2, 1992, at http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/congress.17.htm\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERonald Rotunda, \u003Ci\u003ERunning Out of Time: Can the E.R.A. Be Saved?\u003C\/i\u003E, 64 A.B.A. J. 1507 (1978)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAdrian Vermeule,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EThe Constitutional Law of Official Compensation\u003C\/em\u003E, 102 Colum. L. rev. 501 (2002)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000188-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EColeman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFlast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBoehner v. Anderson, 30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESchaffer v. Clinton, 240 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2001), \u003Ci\u003Ecert. denied sub nom.\u003C\/i\u003E Schaffer v. O\u0027Neill, 122 S.Ct. 458 (2001)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000188-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000024\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECompensation Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000066\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EAppropriations Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000106\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EJudicial Power\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]