Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The United States Congress is a bicameral one consisting of the lower and the upper house which consists of the United States Senate. The lower house is commonly known as the “House” and is made up of the United States House of Representatives. The United States Constitution clearly outlines the criteria for the composite and the division of powers for both the House and the Senate as indicated in Article One of the United States Constitution. The criteria for representation in the House is that depending on its population, each state has a proportional amount of representation meaning that each state has the right to have one representative. The office term for each Representative is two years. A total of 435 Representatives engage in the voting process, this number is fixed. During the election of the Representatives, the Speaker of the House who is elected by the House members presides over the process (Madison 1788).
For a long time, the United States survived under the guidance of laws that existed since the British colonial rule is known as the Articles of Confederation for instance article II in the document stated that each of the states was to retain its independence and autonomy. This the people felt needed to be replaced with one that seeks to come up with a centralized government. Most of these were discussed in the Decision in Philadelphia which is popularly known as The Constitutional Convention of 1787. During this meeting, several amendments were proposed to assist in coming up with a proper constitution. What followed from that time was the process requiring each to vote for the ratification of each amendment to ensure it was included in the Constitution. Initially, only twelve amendments had been proposed and presented to the State legislature for the process of ratification most of which were ratified by the year 1789. Among those amendments that had been proposed and presented to the state legislature but did were ratified by 1789 was the Congressional Pay Amendment which sought to restrain the representatives from altering their salaries when in office by making sure that any adjustments in the wages did not take effect until the elections were held. The amendment came to be known later as the twenty-seventh amendment. Several reasons were cited as the motivators for the amendment proposal for instance the need to have a strong centralized government as opposed to each state having autonomous governments that only served the states level with the independent government. It existed before then in the Constitution allowed them to adjust their wages thereby giving the authority to have a direct say concerning their pay rises. It was obvious that this clause was bound to be manipulated to act on their interest and hike their wages to ridiculously high levels and hence there was a need to attempt to put a check on this. Fears were being raised on the social, economic, and political implications of this amendment which led to debates at the state levels that led to disagreements hence the process of ratification took a rather slow pace with different states ratifying it at different times. The result was a process that took over 200 years before the complete ratification took place (Collier and Collier, 1999).
The amendment has had its fair share of challenges ever since its ratification and inclusion in the constitution with Representatives now arguing that they should be allowed to make adjustments to their wages in accordance with the challenges of the increasing cost of living and inflation. The interpretation and validity of the amendment have also taken center stage in recent times with several cases being tabled in court that lead to the different debate surrounding the amendment and on different occasions, the court has made varying rulings with some people citing the fact that the amendment is over 200 years old and hence lacks validity in current times.
Actual Wording
The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the constitution was the second in a list of twelve Constitutional amendments that were presented before the state legislature for ratification. The amendment proposal was presented to the United States House of Representatives on September 25, 1789, by James Madison who was the Representative for Virginia. In the period between 1789 and 1791, only ten of the twelve proposed bills were ratified but the twenty-seventh amendment bill did not do well as only six states had ratified it by then. The rule was that three-quarters of the states should ratify it before being included in the constitution. According to Mount (2007), After being neglected for over 200 years, the bill then resurfaced in 1982 after a university student by the name of Gregory Watson engaged in rigorous campaigning of the ratification of the amendment after he wrote a term paper on the same and failed. After a relatively intense amount of pushing, the amendment was finally included in the constitution on May 5th, 1992 after it was ratified by Alabama, the thirty-eighth state to do so. The amendment’s actual wording was as follows:
“The Senators and Representatives salaries adjustments, will not apply to the current holders of the office until elections are held.”
The amendment is often referred to as the “Congressional Pay Amendment”. This paper takes a detailed look into the actual meaning of the amendment by exploring the background issues leading to the bill and the various implications of the enactment of the bill varying from the implications socially, politically, and economically. It will also attempt to cover the legal and judicial implications of the enactment of the amendment into the United States Constitution and how various issues have been brought up regarding its effectiveness. On the judicial developments, the paper looks at specific court cases that have resulting in attempts to challenge the validity and interpretation of the amendment. It will further explore the influence of the amendment in the current public administration practices and its impact on the devising of the policies in governance and public administration. The debate is strengthened by the focus on specific administrative perspectives influenced by the amendment in the current times.
Founding Contexts
The amendment seeks to prevent any adjustments in the salaries of the Congress and Senate members from being implemented up until the next term of office begun. The intended purpose was to control the Congress from exercising its power to decide their salaries which would have resulted in a potential interest conflict. The salaries of the federal legislators were to be pegged on the elections that follow in which the House of Representatives members cast the vote. The decision was reached after concerns arose regarding the possibility of Congress acting in their own interest instead of acting in the interest of the public. For a Congressperson to enjoy a pay rise, they are first required to endure a convincing moment to the public in the poll elections which take place after every two years. Several states had suggested changes in the wording of the amendment before they ratified it including New York, Virginia, and North Carolina but it was decided that the original version of the amendment of 1789 be adopted. The senators on the other hand do not fall under the category of having to win the election to enjoy the pay rise since their term goes beyond two years. James Madison for this reason decided to table before the house for debate and later be ratified to a bill of law. Probably for its direct effect on the Representatives and most of all touching on their salaries didn’t receive much popularity and support for it to be ratified until 202 years later. Even when a state decides to ratify it other states were not willing to follow suit (Bernstein, 1999).
After a thorough consideration of the first constitution, several states decided to make the amendment during the 1788 North Carolina convention. This was inspired by the provisions of the original Constitution which gave powers to the Representatives to alter their own salaries during their tenure in office (“Encyclopædia Britannica”, 2009).
Social, political, and economic developments
The bill requiring restraining of the Representatives from adjusting their salaries during their term in office came to be known as the longest-running in terms of amendment ratification hence making it the 27th and the last amendment to be passed to a bill. The slow manner in which the ratification process took place taking over 200 years before the finalizing of the ratification, led to the debate in whether the Representatives were willing to comply with the trusted will bestowed on them by the citizens to put the interest of the people they serve first instead of their own. The point in passing the amendment was to prevent any cases of the Representatives from serving their greed by raising their salaries without an element to put them in check, which can result in every new term resulting in a pay rise for them. The amendment denies Congress the chance to benefit from the salary rises while in office. With the challenges that life has presented over the years ranging from the increased cost of consumer goods amidst rising inflation which by the year 2004 had hit a high of 2.3%, there were appeals to allow them to be allowed to alter their salaries to help them cope with the rising inflation and other life challenges (Michaelis, 1992).
In recent times, there have been attempts by Congress to table amendments to the same to allow for members of Congress to have a say in the adjustments of their wages. In 2003 for instance, Congress made suggestions of amending the law to allow them to adjust their salaries according to the rise in the cost of living. This was aimed at giving the Members of Congress to have the discretion to pass salary raises any time they feel that the cost of living is going up. After much debating, there was a big support for the developments of the Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs). This was enacted allowing them to accordingly adjust their wages. In 2004, the Members of Congress were dealing with an amendment aimed at denying them the power to increase their pay in accordance with the inflation rate. The problem with this and which brings in the need to control the salary adjustments by the Congress is the fact that there are no definite and standard means of equating the inflation rate to the salaries so as to come up with the right criteria for adjustments in salaries and hence the possibility of manipulation to meet their needs and not serve the people they represent. Congressional of living adjustments (COLAs) have continued to exist despite the fact that the 27th amendment is still legally upheld.
Judicial developments
The twenty-seventh amendment took a period of over 200 years from the time of its proposal to the time of its ratification. Despite the fact the amendment remained buried in history, the issue was still able to resurface and draw an amount of support that would finally see it made a bill of law. When the criteria of its ratification were finally met by meeting the required three-quarters of the state’s support, there was still a significant amount of opposition from some members to block its enactment. This prompted the intervention of the judiciary to hear both sides of the story. On May 19, 1992, the amendment received an official certification after it was fully ratified by Archivist Don W. Wilson who was. The amendment was later published in the Federal Register alongside the certification. A number of people led by the Tom Foley who was then the Speaker of the House went ahead to point accusing fingers saying that the ratification didn’t follow the logistics and hence they went on to challenge the decision legally. Coleman who was the judge at the time ruled in favor of congress arguing that only Congress is mandated to determine the acceptable and what is unacceptable for the constitution. Wilson also received accusations from Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was the longest-serving senator in the Congress than anyone else, regarding the manner of certification of the amendment despite the fact that the Congress had not approved it. Byrd’s argument was that Congress has accepted the amendment was not enough and they should have been allocated some time to discuss the amendment and determine its validity having in mind that 202 years had elapsed since its proposal. Despite these accusations, the Congressmen went ahead to conclusively say that the amendment was valid in its ratification regardless of the fact that 202 years had passed before the task was completed. Another issue that required the judicial intervention to settle it is the conflicting stipulations of the amendment on one side and the later formed Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs). The amendment clearly stated that members of the House of Representatives have no right to enjoy the adjustments of their wages until the next election for the term in office (Dalzel and Beste 1992).
Despite the fact that the amendment is still in exercise, recent years’ rise in the cost of living prompted Congress to find a way to adjust their salaries to cope with the increasing cost of living and inflation. Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs) was therefore formed. This brought about conflicts between individuals too. The Constitution still recognizes that the legal implications of the 27th amendment still stand but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in a case between Boehner v. Anderson ruled out the constitutional stipulations regarding pay rises saying that the legal challenges of the amendment do not affect the operations of annual COLAs. In a case between Coleman v. Miller, however, the court failed to make a final ruling handing the final decision over to Congress who would determine whether the ratification of the pay rise fell in line with the proposal. In the 1989 Ethics Reform Act Pub. L. No. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716, which establishes that there should be an increase in wages based on the rate of variation in the cost of employment index subtract half a percent, court’s ruling was that the issue of raising the wages was in line with the twenty-seventh amendment owing to the fact that the application was not until the elections were held (Paulsen, 1993).
Meaning for Administrative Practice and /or the Making of the Public Policy
The ratification of the twenty-seventh amendment which meant that the Representatives did not have a right to enjoy any adjustment made on the wages until the following term was aimed at keeping Congress in check concerning the way they made decisions on their pay rise. The significant implication of this in the recent past has been the attempts by the Congress to authenticate that the policies concerning the pay rises be implemented immediately during the current tenure of office such that the sitting Congress has the authority to read the current trend in the living conditions and the inflation rate, and thereby make the necessary adjustments to their salaries to help them cope with the hard times (Killian and Costello, 1993).
With the consequent formation of Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs) which are meant to cut across all the citizens in the United States, the provision of this has been exploited by the Representatives to accordingly call for an increase in their salary wages. The argument here is that the requirements of the COLAs surpass the dictates of the amendment. This they have very well exploited hence and consequently went ahead to increase their salaries while they are in office. In the public administration practices, this amendment has had had its fair share of debate stemming from the way those in office has proceeded to exploit the provision and even made the necessary adjustments to alter the timeline of policies taking effect in a bid to force them to be in agreement with the twenty-seventh amendment. For instance, by shifting the date of the policies taking effect until after the elections are held. The manner in which those in office secretly and thoughtfully execute the exploitation makes it hard to give clear accusations in the court of law leading to various cases that appear to be in direct violation of the amendment. Several cases, therefore, have been won, others the court has left the decision to congress to decide whether the ratification is in line with the proposal of the amendment and others arguing that the amendment is very old and we should not be enslaved by policies that were made hundreds of years ago. On the positive side of the application of the amendment, the intended purpose of having the Congress serve the interest of the citizens they represent first before their own was effective as the Congress Representatives could not make decisions affecting their salaries and the focus of having the elections first before the policies took effect served well as a check for their powers. Knowing that deciding on a pay rise would mean more spending on the taxpayer’s money, the Representatives had to steer from this and concentrate on those actions that would earn them public support to ensure re-election (Shafritz et. al., 2008).
Summary
The idea of making sure the Representatives do not directly alter their salaries was probably the best way to maintain their loyalty to the people they serve. The salaries have actually increased from $6 for a Senator in1789 to $169,300 in 2008. Having the effectiveness of the policy changes being pegged on the elections meant that the Congress members had to show commitment to the offering of service to the people they serve and this was definitely not by passing laws that aimed at exploiting the taxpayer’s money. The inclusion of the amendment in the constitution after ratification which took the longest period of over 200 years goes to show how the amendment was able to stand the test of time to finally seeing the light and significantly impacting the way public offices were run and the decisions in the Supreme Courts. Despite the attempts by Congress to amend the Bill again to give them the mandate of having a say in their salaries, they are met with strong opposition since the proper use of the taxpayer’s money has been the subject of the debate especially in recent times when inflation and global economic recession have brought new challenges. In the future, it is almost possible to predict that with the rising awareness of the operations of the Federal government and with the maintained efforts to sustain the economy through these hard times of inflation and increased cost of living as well as the recent economic recession, there will be sustained pressure to make sure the Representatives do not misuse the public funds. There are also the possibilities of a harmonized common stand on the cases of pay rises in the public sector in the Supreme Court. The salaries can however be increased through a recommendation from the president with the other method being the agreed-upon annual increments as provided by the General schedule of federal employees since 1990.
References
“Encyclopædia Britannica” (2009). Twenty-seventh Amendment. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Web.
Bernstein, Richard B. 1992.”The Sleeper Wakes: The History of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.” Fordham Law Review 61.
Collier, C., and Collie, J. L. (1999). Creating the Constitution, 1787. New York: Benchmark Books.
Dalzell, Stewart, and Beste, Eric J. (1994).”Is the Twenty-Seventh Amendment 200 Years Too Late?” George Washington Law Review, 62.
Killian, J. H. and Costello, G. A. (1993). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. (Senate Document No. 103–6). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Madison, James. (1788). The Federalist No. 52: The House of Representatives. Web.
Michaelis, L. (1992). “Both Chambers Rush to Accept 27th Amendment on Salaries”. Congressional Quarterly, 1423.
Mount, S. (2007). “Ratification of Constitutional Amendments“. Web.
Paulsen, M. S. (1993). “A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.” Yale Law Journal 103.
Shafritz, J., Russel, E. W. and Borick, C. (2008). Introducing Public Administration. (Ed) London: Longman.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.