Congress' Unconstitutional COLA Squabble
---
All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. This is never more true than when their own paychecks are involved:
Two hasty stitches:
1. A COLA varies "the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives." The argument that "a COLA is not a pay raise" and is therefore not subject to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is unconscionable sophistry.
2. If "no law shall take effect," then clearly no "non-law" can take effect either. If there is no specific action during a specific Congress varying their specific compensation (but not until after a specific election shall have intervened), then clearly the Twenty-Seventh Amendment cannot have been satisfied. Putting the COLAs on "legislative auto-pilot" simply does not satisfy the Amendment, whether viewed from a textualist, plain meaning, original meaning or original intent interpretation. There is no intellectually honest way to make the COLA law valid.
But this is Congress, so don't expect "intellectually honest" to factor into the debate any time soon.
When Democrats blasted Republicans last fall for taking annual congressional pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, it was an effective campaign tactic. Democrats vowed not to accept the annual cost-of-living hike until Congress increases the minimum wage.If one act of Congress can be "more unconstitutional" than another, then the COLA provision may be the "most unconstitutional" thing Congress has ever done.
But Republicans angered over the political attacks are unwilling to allow Democrats to reinstate the so-called members' COLA, forcing Democratic leaders to scuttle the 1.7 percent pay hike for the entire year.
...
Under the annual COLA, lawmakers automatically get a pay hike unless Congress votes to block it.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.So reads the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, arguably the most succinct provision in the Constitution.
Two hasty stitches:
1. A COLA varies "the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives." The argument that "a COLA is not a pay raise" and is therefore not subject to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is unconscionable sophistry.
2. If "no law shall take effect," then clearly no "non-law" can take effect either. If there is no specific action during a specific Congress varying their specific compensation (but not until after a specific election shall have intervened), then clearly the Twenty-Seventh Amendment cannot have been satisfied. Putting the COLAs on "legislative auto-pilot" simply does not satisfy the Amendment, whether viewed from a textualist, plain meaning, original meaning or original intent interpretation. There is no intellectually honest way to make the COLA law valid.
But this is Congress, so don't expect "intellectually honest" to factor into the debate any time soon.
Posted by Kip on
31 January 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.