海角大神

The House on Wednesday passed its 鈥渘o budget, no pay鈥� bill, which suspends the debt ceiling for three months and calls upon both chambers of Congress to pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by April 15. Under terms of the legislation, if lawmakers miss that deadline their salaries are withheld. That鈥檚 where the 鈥渘o pay鈥� part of the thing kicks in.

Sounds like a logical way to pressure members of Congress, doesn鈥檛 it? If you don鈥檛 produce in the private sector, you can lose both pay and your job, after all. By law, Congress is supposed to pass an annual budget resolution. But the Senate, for its part, hasn鈥檛 done so in any of the past three years.

鈥淲ith the passage of this bill today it鈥檚 pretty clear that we鈥檙e sending a message to the Democrat-controlled Senate: it鈥檚 time to do your job,鈥� said House Speaker John Boehner after the legislation鈥檚 passage.

But there is one minor problem here: It is quite possible that the 鈥渘o pay鈥� part of the bill is unconstitutional.

Why is that? Because of the 27th聽Amendment to the Constitution, that鈥檚 why. (Submitted to the states in 1789, this amendment was not ratified until 1992, which is an interesting story unto itself.)

Congressional pay is the 27th鈥檚 subject. Among other things, it says, 鈥淣o law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.鈥�

The main point of that wording is to keep lawmakers from voting themselves a fat pay raise and pocketing the cash ASAP. If they did that, they would at least have to face the voters once prior to buying those Bahamian condos. So it鈥檚 a check on congressional largesse.

But some constitutional law experts say that the law, as drawn up, works in reverse as well. They point out that taking money out of congressional pockets counts is 鈥渧arying鈥� just as much as putting money in would be.

Thus, the no pay provision of the bill 鈥渋s (almost certainly) blatantly unconstitutional,鈥� Michael Foomkin, a professor at University of Miami School of Law, on his .

If the House had passed this a few days ago, prior to the beginning of the new Congress, that would be OK. But now it can鈥檛 take effect until after the 2014 midterms, according to this analysis.

This is not simply a liberal鈥檚 way of looking at the wording, either. The conservative group on Jan. 18 calling the legislation unconstitutional.

Not surprisingly, House Republican leaders saw this mini-flap coming. They have attempted to defuse it by simply inserting language within the bill stating that the bill passes muster. Section 2 of the legislation says this: 鈥淚n order to ensure that this section is carried out in a manner that shall not vary the compensation of Senators or Representatives in violation of the twenty-seventy article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts remaining in any escrow account under this section on the last day of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.鈥�

In other words, it isn鈥檛 really a 鈥渘o pay鈥� bill. It鈥檚 a 鈥渄elayed pay鈥� bill. Even if the Senate doesn鈥檛 pass a budget, senators would get their full pay at the end of the session.

Not that most of them need it, since they鈥檙e pretty rich as a rule, right?

So it all comes down to the meaning of 鈥渧ary.鈥� Some experts say the language is clever and passes muster. 鈥淚 suspect this passes Constitutional scrutiny,鈥� writes Jordan Ragusa, associate professor of political science at the College of Charleston, at the .

Others point out that money has a time value, and delayed payments are in essence smaller. Plus, it鈥檚 possible there are members of Congress who live paycheck to paycheck and need the money.

And 鈥渧ary,鈥� on the surface, seems to mean ... well, changing the pattern of. Which would seem to cover what鈥檚 happening.

In light of this, 鈥渢he proposal would thus be unconstitutional,鈥� writes Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, on his .

Of course, in the real world this is probably a moot point. What member of Congress is going to sue to get their pay under these circumstances? This is especially true given that 86 House Democrats voted for the bill, as President Obama鈥檚 party sees the legislation as a white flag on the part of the GOP, something that allows Congress to skirt the debt limit issue and move on to other fiscal arguments.