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 27th amendment to the United States Constitution, which was officially adopted in May 1992. The ratification of this amendment, though called in to question by some politicos, was accepted by Congress. In spite of this amendment, this week the Congress has once again violated the very Constitution its elected members are sworn to uphold. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives approved a $3,000 pay increase for its members. Currently members of Congress receive (not earn) over $168,000 per year.

How do members of Congress justify such a flagrant violation of the US Constitution? One word: semantics. They call it a “cost of living adjustment” rather than a pay raise and have been making such cost of living adjustments practically every year without so much as a whimper of opposition from anyone. In the past when there have been objections to Congressional pay increases, those who have objected have made no mention of their illegality, only noting that such increases aren’t deserved. While it’s quite obvious that such salaries aren’t deserved, merit is irrelevant in this matter. If Congressional salaries were based on merit, few members would receive (not earn) more than minimum wage, and even that would be too generous in many cases.

These cost of living adjustments have not gone without challenge in the federal courts, which have consistently ruled that a cost of living adjustment is not a pay raise and therefore not subject to the 27th amendment. How convenient. The legal basis for such a ruling is nonsensical to say the least. In the first place, a pay raise is just that, a raise in pay. A cost of living adjustment or COLA is a raise or increase in pay. Efforts to separate the two are little more than parlor games designed to usurp the Constitution. In the second place the 27th amendment makes no distinction based on the type of pay increase a member of Congress shall receive. The amendment clearly states that ANY variation in compensation is unlawful without an intervening election; this would include an increase or decrease in congressional salaries.

Once again our esteemed members of congress have demonstrated their long held belief in their own supremacy, a belief that they are immune from the law, whether its federal investigations of corrupt congressmen or extra-Constitutional pay raises. The founding fathers would be greatly disappointed to see what scoundrels are in charge of the nation’s affairs today.

Perhaps Congress is on to something…the next time those of us in the real world want a raise, we should simply ask for a cost of living adjustment, when our bosses scoff, simply remind them its not a raise and they should ignore the fact that our salaries actually INCREASE.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/congress.payraise.ap/index.html