Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
But the idea – formally unveiled Monday, teeing up a vote on Wednesday – is already drawing criticism from some Democrats and Republicans, who claim the provision on pay violates the Constitution. The 27th Amendment states that: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
“I understand the sentiment behind ‘no budget, no pay,’” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Monday, but “it appears that the 27th Amendment does not permit Congress to alter its pay in the midst of a current session.”
“We just started the 113th Congress, effectively meaning that we would not be able to alter our pay or wouldn’t be able to take effect until 2015,” Jeffries told Fox News. “Even if this was presented, it would render it meaningless in terms of the effect it’s intended to have.”
"
But the idea – formally unveiled Monday, teeing up a vote on Wednesday – is already drawing criticism from some Democrats and Republicans, who claim the provision on pay violates the Constitution. The 27th Amendment states that: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
“I understand the sentiment behind ‘no budget, no pay,’” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Monday, but “it appears that the 27th Amendment does not permit Congress to alter its pay in the midst of a current session.”
“We just started the 113th Congress, effectively meaning that we would not be able to alter our pay or wouldn’t be able to take effect until 2015,” Jeffries told Fox News. “Even if this was presented, it would render it meaningless in terms of the effect it’s intended to have.”
So trying to force the Senate to take part in the budget process is unconstitutional. Whoops, that is not what you and those Dems are saying, is it? No, it is always best to take from the budget process and go to Congressional pay or lack of it. By golly when some part of the Constitution works for you use it and avoid it any other time. That is what I call this game although I do understand what they are saying.
The Senate Democrats' refusal to pass a budget, is unconstitutional. And that happened first.
If the leftist fanatics want to bring an action against the bill refusing Congressmen's pay for not passing a budget, they'll have to take a number and stand in line.
The Senate Democrats' refusal to pass a budget, is unconstitutional. And that happened first.
If the leftist fanatics want to bring an action against the bill refusing Congressmen's pay for not passing a budget, they'll have to take a number and stand in line.
Something has to be done to force Dirty Harry and his people into the budgetary process that is called for by law and this does seem to be about as good as anything else.
I think this is hilarious. Democrats all of a sudden hiding behind the Constition while their King Barry I does an end around the Constitution at home and abroad everyday and yet they say NOTHING!
**** them. They use the Constitution as toilet paper. Let them go hungry.
Harry Reid is the best evidence of Area 51 out there - he's definitely inhuman.
I bet he sneaks back to the Mother Ship on the weekends.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.