but it was not until this day in 1992 that the amendment was actually officially added tz to the constitution. 12 days before that, michigan became the 38th state to ratify the 27th amendment. you recognize that guy. right? here s some of nbc s andrea mitchell s report on that. the revolution is about reporter: when michigan dame the 38th state to ratify the amendment it was official. a few hours later, new jersey added its voice. one more state needed. written by james madison, the idea was simple. a pay raise should not go into effect until after the next election so the voters could have their say. when the senate voted a pay raise, public outrage boim eboi over. some sap the amendment is not valid because it took too long to ratify. it stretched over a period exceeding two centuries. i think on the legal merits, it
mystery. i first thought this had to do with the 27th amendment. congress can t do anything affecting its own pay in the middle of the congress. martha: right. but the sequester was set prior to the 2012 election. then they re elected. then the sequester hits. so there is no reason they couldn t have put their own pape into the sequester. at the beginning. but, i guess they forgot. martha: i guess they forgot. martha: now there is some discussion about perhaps they could change the current law. that would allow them, come on. this is not going to happen. this is not, is anybody out there, any congressman or congresswoman that you know of, sort of pushing to make this part of the sequester? they re proposing it. but the problem now is really the 27th amendment because they can t do it in the middle of a congress. martha: isn t that supposed to protect them from raising their salaries. the original purpose very conveniently prevents from changing at all. so they can t cut it. when
country, but not in one place,e freshman representative wants to put an end to that, congressman, you have a plan to make congress feel some of the pain of the what s your plan? well, my plan is simple. i think that the sequester should simply apply to our pay. we are somehow exempted from that, so you see other members of the federal work force, you see members of the congressional staff may have to get pay cuts depending how the budgets work and i think it s part of being a republican form of government that we re not exempting ourselves from the operation of laws. so, it s a small money saver, but i think it speaks to a larger principle. and i guess under the constitution you can t do it. you have it wait. you can t adjust your salaries, congressional salaries until the next term, right? you can pass it now, but until the next election, this would take effect right after the next election and really, that the 27th amendment was put there to prevent pay increases, but we have
congress. freshman representative wants to put an end to that, congressman, you have a plan to make congress feel some of the pain of the what s your plan? well, my plan is simple. i think that the sequester should simply apply to our pay. we are somehow exempted from that, so you see other members of the federal work force, you see members of the congressional staff may have to get pay cuts depending how the budgets work and i think it s part of being a republican form of government that we re not exempting ourselves from the operation of laws. so, it s a small money saver, but i think it speaks to a larger principle. and i guess under the constitution you can t do it. you have it wait. you can t adjust your salaries, congressional salaries until the next term, right? you can pass it now, but until the next election, this would take effect right after the next election and really, that the 27th amendment was put there to prevent pay increases, but we have to abide by the text o
programs. it s probably as painless a way but i would not support cutting social security and medicare in order to preserve the tax cuts and what we have done in this kind of sequential budget that we are dealing with. congressman, i want you to help me understand something. krystal referenced the no budget, no pay provision. they won t be paid with no budget by april 15th and sounds good and i m sure the american people are like, wow, they re doing something but 27th amendment of the constitution says no, you can t do. no law varying the compensation of services of senators and representatives shall take effect. why would you tell the american people we won t get paid until we pass a budget when you can t do that? there s provision in there to deal with that and that says you won t get paid until the end of the congressional session and so ultimately you would be paid and so that makes sense for a group