• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

can someone explain the 27th ammendment

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We just recently went over the constitution and we spent about one day reviewing ammendments..... the 27th ammendment seems slightly corrupt and evil.....or at least the way it was interpretted to me anyway....my teacher was very vague and the book had the word for word ammendment but I was wondering if anyone could put it simply for me.....
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
goligoth said:
We just recently went over the constitution and we spent about one day reviewing ammendments..... the 27th ammendment seems slightly corrupt and evil.....or at least the way it was interpretted to me anyway....my teacher was very vague and the book had the word for word ammendment but I was wondering if anyone could put it simply for me.....
Take a look at this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment27/
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
goligoth said:
We just recently went over the constitution and we spent about one day reviewing ammendments..... the 27th ammendment seems slightly corrupt and evil.....or at least the way it was interpretted to me anyway....my teacher was very vague and the book had the word for word ammendment but I was wondering if anyone could put it simply for me.....
It basically says that if Congress votes to give themselves a pay raise, it won't take effect until after the next election of Congress. The idea is to prevent Congress from robbing the treasury for personal purposes before the voters can hold them accountable.
 

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
It basically says that if Congress votes to give themselves a pay raise, it won't take effect until after the next election of Congress. The idea is to prevent Congress from robbing the treasury for personal purposes before the voters can hold them accountable.
so basically they vote their successors a pay raise?
 

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
Exactly.



..

even though that is a little bit better than what I was thinking it still isn't a great idea.....being able to control wages of people like yourself....
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
goligoth said:
so basically they vote their successors a pay raise?
no, since 90-96% of the last congressional elections resulted in incumbant candidates winning, they actually "vote" themselves pay raises.

Now, of course, they wrote a law that establishes automatic pay increases, and they actually now have to vote NOT to increase their pay.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The 27th Amendment was originally part of the Bill of Rights, but was not ratified until the 1990s.
 

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
libertarian_knight said:
no, since 90-96% of the last congressional elections resulted in incumbant candidates winning, they actually "vote" themselves pay raises.

Now, of course, they wrote a law that establishes automatic pay increases, and they actually now have to vote NOT to increase their pay.
Do you have a link or something like that to support this...
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
goligoth said:
Do you have a link or something like that to support this...
"Candidate-centered voting is a major advantage to incumbent members of Congress. Incumbents, in general, receive far more exposure on television and in newspapers than those challenging them. With greater media exposure and substantial influence over public policy, incumbents are also able to raise far greater sums of money with which to campaign. For these reasons and more, incumbents who run for reelection are very likely to win. In 2002, 398 House members ran for reelection, and only 16 were defeated, while a mere three out of 26 senators running for reelection lost. With a reelection rate of 88 percent for the Senate and 96 percent for the House, it is fair to say that congressional elections are not just candidate centered but incumbent centered as well."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/congress.htm

==

these results are pretty typical. I can find more, if you want.
 

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
libertarian_knight said:
"Candidate-centered voting is a major advantage to incumbent members of Congress. Incumbents, in general, receive far more exposure on television and in newspapers than those challenging them. With greater media exposure and substantial influence over public policy, incumbents are also able to raise far greater sums of money with which to campaign. For these reasons and more, incumbents who run for reelection are very likely to win. In 2002, 398 House members ran for reelection, and only 16 were defeated, while a mere three out of 26 senators running for reelection lost. With a reelection rate of 88 percent for the Senate and 96 percent for the House, it is fair to say that congressional elections are not just candidate centered but incumbent centered as well."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/congress.htm

==

these results are pretty typical. I can find more, if you want.
That's all right; this works fine. So if this is truly how the system works then how exactly is this constitutional?
 
Top Bottom