XXVII emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti d'America | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Stato | ![]() |
Tipo legge | Legge costituzionale |
Legislatura | Congresso del 1789, 1º Congresso degli Stati Uniti d'America |
Proponente | Gregory Watson |
Promulgazione | 5 maggio 1992 |
In vigore | 5 maggio 1992 |
Testo | |
(EN) XXVII Emendamento, in The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, National Archives. URL consultato il 21 gennaio 2023. |
Il XXVII emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti d'America (Emendamento XXVII, noto anche come Legge sulla Remunerazione del Congresso del 1789[1][2]) stabilisce che qualsiasi legge che aumenti o diminuisca lo stipendio dei membri del Congresso può entrare in vigore solo dopo le successive elezioni della Camera dei Rappresentanti. È l'emendamento adottato più di recente, ma è stato uno dei primi proposti.
Il 1º Congresso sottopose l'emendamento alla ratifica degli Stati il 25 settembre 1789, insieme ad altri 11 emendamenti proposti (Articoli I-XII). Gli ultimi dieci articoli furono ratificati nel 1791 e divennero la Carta dei Diritti, ma i primi due, il Ventisettesimo Emendamento e la proposta di Emendamento sulla ripartizione del Congresso, non furono ratificati da un numero sufficiente di Stati per entrare in vigore con gli stessi.
La proposta di emendamento sulle retribuzioni del Congresso è stata in gran parte dimenticata fino al 1982, quando Gregory Watson, uno studente diciannovenne dell'Università del Texas ad Austin, scrisse una relazione per un corso di governo in cui sosteneva che l'emendamento poteva ancora essere ratificato. In seguito lanciò una campagna nazionale per completare la ratifica.[3][4] Alla fine l'emendamento è entrato a far parte della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti, con effetto dal 5 maggio 1992,[5] completando un periodo di ratifica da record di 202 anni, 7 mesi e 10 giorni, battendo il precedente record stabilito dal XXII emendamento di 3 anni e 343 giorni.[6]
L'idea alla base di questo emendamento è di ridurre la corruzione nel ramo legislativo richiedendo un'elezione prima che l'aumento di stipendio di un deputato abbia effetto. I cittadini possono così rimuovere i membri del Congresso dal loro incarico prima che il loro stipendio aumenti.[7] Non è chiaro se l'emendamento abbia prodotto un cambiamento nel comportamento del Congresso.[8]
Testo
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]Nessuna legge che modifichi il compenso per i servizi dei Senatori e dei Rappresentanti avrà effetto finché non sia intervenuta l'elezione dei Rappresentanti.[9]
Contesto storico
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]Several states raised the issue of Congressional salaries as they debated whether to ratify the Constitution.
North Carolina's ratifying convention proposed several amendments to the Constitution, including the following: "The laws ascertaining the compensation of senators and representatives, for their services, shall be postponed in their operation until after the election of representatives immediately succeeding the passing thereof; that excepted which shall first be passed on the subject." Virginia's ratifying convention recommended an identical amendment.[10]
New York's declaration of ratification was accompanied by a similar amendment proposal: "That the Compensation for the Senators and Representatives be ascertained by standing law; and that no alteration of the existing rate of Compensation shall operate for the Benefit of the Representatives, until after a subsequent Election shall have been had."[10]
Proposta del Congresso
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]This amendment was one of several proposed amendments to the Constitution that Representative James Madison of Virginia introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Madison's original intent was that it be added to the end of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution ("The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States").[11] This and Madison's other proposals were referred to a committee consisting of one representative from each state. After emerging from committee, the full House debated the issue and, on August 24, 1789, passed it and 16 other articles of amendment. The proposals went next to the Senate, which made 26 substantive alterations. On September 9, 1789, the Senate approved a culled and consolidated package of 12 articles of amendment.[12]
On September 21, 1789, a House–Senate conference committee convened to resolve numerous differences between the House and Senate Bill of Rights proposals. On September 24, 1789, the committee issued its report, which finalized 12 proposed amendments for the House and Senate to consider. The House agreed to the conference report that day, and the Senate concurred the next day.[13]
What would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment was listed second among the 12 proposals sent on September 25, 1789, to the states for their consideration. Ten of these, numbers 3–12, were ratified 27 months later and are known as the Bill of Rights. The remaining proposal, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, has not been ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution.
The article on Congressional compensation was initially ratified by seven states through 1792 (including Kentucky), but was not ratified by another state for eighty years. The Ohio General Assembly ratified it on May 6, 1873, in protest of an unpopular Congressional pay raise.[14] A century later, on March 6, 1978, the Wyoming Legislature also ratified the article.[15]
Rinnovato interesse
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]This proposed amendment was largely forgotten until Gregory Watson, an undergraduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper on the subject in 1982 for a political science course.[16][17][18][10] In the paper, Watson argued that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. Watson received a "C" grade for his paper from one of the course's teaching assistants. Watson appealed the grade to the course instructor, Sharon Waite, who declined to overrule the teaching assistant.[19][20][4] Waite has said, "I kind of glanced at it, but I didn't see anything that was particularly outstanding about it and I thought the C was probably fine".[18] Watson responded by starting a new push for ratification with a letter-writing campaign to state legislatures.[14]
In Dillon v. Gloss,[21], the Supreme Court remarked that "ratification [of a proposed constitutional amendment] must be within some reasonable time after the proposal", and suggested that it was "quite untenable" to view proposed amendments from 1789, 1810, and 1861 as still pending.
But in Coleman v. Miller,[22], the court ruled that the validity of state ratifications of a constitutional amendment is a political matter, and thus not properly assigned to the judiciary. It also held that as a political question, it was up to Congress to determine whether an amendment with no time limit for ratification is still viable after a long time based on "the political, social and economic conditions which have prevailed during the period since the submission of the amendment".
Watson used $6,000 of his own money to sponsor his nationwide effort.[23] When Watson began his campaign in early 1982, he was aware of ratification by only six states and erroneously believed that Virginia's 1791 approval was the last action a state had taken. He discovered in 1983 that Ohio had approved the amendment in 1873 as a means of protest against the Salary Grab Act and learned in 1984 that Wyoming had done the same in 1978, as a protest against a 1977 congressional pay raise.[14][24] Watson also did not know until 1997, well after the amendment's adoption, that Kentucky had ratified the amendment in 1792.[25] Neither did Kentucky lawmakers themselvesTemplate:Sndin Watson's desire for a 50-state sweep, the Kentucky General Assembly post-ratified the amendment in 1996 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 50), at Watson's request, likewise unaware that the task had already been attended to 204 years earlier.[26]
In April 1983, Maine became the first state to ratify the amendment as a result of Watson's campaign, followed by Colorado in April 1984. Numerous state legislatures followed suit, with some reaffirming the amendment despite having affirmed it centuries ago. Michigan and New Jersey rushed to be the 38th state to ratify the amendment, but Michigan was faster, ratifying the amendment on May 7, 1992, resulting in the certification of the amendment. New Jersey ratified the amendment regardless, overturning its rejection of the amendment centuries earlier.[10]
In 2016, Zach Elkins, a professor in the University of Texas at Austin Department of Government, became interested in Watson's story and began to document its origins.[27] He tracked down Sharon Waite, who had left academia in the 1980s to work on her family's citrus farm.[27] Elkins suggested to Waite that they change Watson's grade.[27] In 2017, Elkins submitted a grade change form with Waite's signature and a grade change to A+.[27][4] In an interview, Waite said, "Goodness, he certainly proved he knew how to work the Constitution and what it meant and how to be politically active, [...] So, yes, I think he deserves an A after that effortTemplate:SndA-plus!"[18] A+ is not a valid grade at UT, so Watson's grade may have been changed to an A, though Elkins urged the registrar to leave it as the only A+ ever recorded at the University of Texas.[27][28][29][4] In the same year, the Texas Legislature passed a congratulatory resolution in response to Watson's successful grade change and his overall political participation.[30]
Ratifica da parte degli Stati
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/27th_amendment_ratification.svg/370px-27th_amendment_ratification.svg.png)
Emendamento ratificato, 1789–1792
Emendamento ratificato, 1873
Emendamento ratificato, 1978–1991
Emendamento ratificato, Maggio 19921
Ratificato dopo la promulgazione, dal 1992 ad oggi.
Ratificato due volte (NC: 1789 e 1989; KY: 1792 e 1996)
Non ha ratificato l'emendamento
1L'Archivista non certificò l'emendamento fino al 18 maggio 1992, con 40 Stati elencati come ratificatori dell'emendamento. La ratifica del Kentucky del 1792, allora sconosciuta, avrebbe portato a 41 gli Stati che avevano ratificato al momento della certificazione, tre in più dei 38 necessari per una maggioranza di tre quarti.I seguenti Stati hanno ratificato il Ventisettesimo Emendamento:
- Maryland – 19 dicembre 1789
- North Carolina – 22 dicembre 1789 (Reaffirmed on 4 luglio 1989)[31]
- South Carolina – 19 gennaio 1790
- Delaware – 28 gennaio 1790
- Vermont – 3 novembre 1791
- Virginia – 15 dicembre 1791
- Kentucky – 27 giugno 1792[32] (Reaffirmed on March 21, 1996)
- Ohio – 6 maggio 1873
- Wyoming – 6 marzo 1978
- Maine – 27 aprile 1983
- Colorado – 22 aprile 1984
- South Dakota – 21 febbraio 1985
- New Hampshire – 7 marzo 1985 (After rejection on 26 gennaio 1790)[33]
- Arizona – 3 aprile 1985
- Tennessee – 28 maggio 1985
- Oklahoma – 1 luglio 1985
- New Mexico – 14 febbraio 1986
- Indiana – 24 febbraio 1986
- Utah – 25 febbraio 1986
- Arkansas – 13 marzo 1987
- Montana – 17 marzo 1987
- Connecticut – 13 maggio 1987
- Wisconsin – 15 luglio 1987
- Georgia – 2 febbraio 1988
- West Virginia – 10 marzo 1988
- Louisiana – 7 luglio 1988
- Iowa – 9 febbraio 1989
- Idaho – 23 marzo 1989
- Nevada – 26 aprile 1989
- Alaska – 6 maggio 1989
- Oregon – 19 maggio 1989
- Minnesota – 22 maggio 1989
- Texas – 25 maggio 1989
- Kansas – 5 aprile 1990
- Florida – 31 maggio 1990
- North Dakota – 25 marzo 1991
- Missouri – 5 maggio 1992
- Alabama – 5 maggio 1992
- Michigan – 7 maggio 1992
On May 18, 1992, the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, certified that the amendment's ratification had been completed.[34][35] Michigan's May 7, 1992, ratification was believed to be the 38th state, but it later came to light that the Kentucky General Assembly had ratified the amendment during that state's initial month of statehood,[32] making Alabama (which acted after Missouri on May 5, 1992) the state to finalize the amendment's addition to the Constitution.[36][5]
The amendment was subsequently ratified by:
- New Jersey – May 7, 1992 (After rejection on November 20, 1789)[33]
- Illinois – May 12, 1992
- California – June 26, 1992
- Rhode Island – June 10, 1993[37] (After rejection on June 7, 1790)[33]
- Hawaii – April 29, 1994[37]
- Washington – April 6, 1995[37]
- Nebraska – April 1, 2016[38]
Four states have not ratified the Twenty-seventh Amendment: Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Dichiarazione di ratifica
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]On May 19, 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment's certificate of ratification, signed by the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, on May 18, 1992, was printed and published in the Federal Register.[39]
In certifying that the amendment had been duly ratified, the Archivist of the United States had acted under statutory authority granted to his office by the Congress under Template:USC, which states:Template:Blockquote
The response in Congress was sharp. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia scolded Wilson for certifying the amendment without congressional approval. Although Byrd supported congressional acceptance of the amendment, he contended that Wilson had deviated from "historic tradition" by not waiting for Congress to consider the ratification's validity, given the extremely long time since the amendment had been proposed.[35] Speaker of the House Tom Foley and others called for a legal challenge to the ratification.
On May 20, 1992, under the authority recognized in Coleman, and in keeping with the precedent established by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, each house of the 102nd Congress passed its own version of a concurrent resolution agreeing that the amendment was validly ratified, despite the more than 202 years the task took. The Senate's approval of the resolution was unanimous (99 to 0) and the House vote was 414 to 3.[14]
Problemi legali
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]Adeguamenti del costo della vita
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]Congressional cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) have been upheld against legal challenges based on this amendment. In Boehner v. Anderson,[40] the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Twenty-seventh Amendment does not affect annual COLAs. In Schaffer v. Clinton,[41] the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that receiving such a COLA does not grant members of the Congress standing in federal court to challenge it; the Supreme Court did not hear either case, and so has never ruled on this amendment's effect on COLAs.
Niente bilancio, niente leggi sulla retribuzione
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]The No Budget, No Pay Act was proposed in 2012 and again in 2013 to prevent lawmakers from being paid during a government shutdown. The bill received limited bipartisan support, but concerns were raised that it violated the twenty-seventh amendment saying that Congress may not "vary" the compensation of its members until the next election.[42][43] The bill did not pass and the Supreme Court has not addressed its constitutionality.[43]
Note
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]- ^ (EN) Twenty-seventh Amendment, su school.eb.com, Encyclopædia Britannica. URL consultato il 7 settembre 2022.
- ^ (EN) Congressional Compensation and Debates over Ratification of the Constitution, su LII / Legal Information Institute. URL consultato il 7 settembre 2024.
- ^ (EN) Richard Berke, 1789 Amendment Is Ratified But Now the Debate Begins, in The New York Times, May 8, 1992. URL consultato il March 24, 2016.
- ^ a b c d (EN) Zachary Elkins, Underestimated but Undeterred: The 27th Amendment and the Power of Tenacious Citizenship, in Political Science & Politics, vol. 56, August 11, 2022, pp. 158–163, DOI:10.1017/S1049096522000816.
- ^ a b (EN) The U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Law, Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012, pp. 105–108, ISBN 9781615307555.
- ^ (EN) Calculate Duration Between Two Dates – Results, su timeanddate.com.
- ^ (EN) Interpretation: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, su constitutioncenter.org, The National Constitution Center. URL consultato il 28 dicembre 2020.«Se l'opinione pubblica si opponesse a un aumento di stipendio troppo generoso da parte dei membri del Congresso, i cittadini potrebbero cacciare i deputati colpevoli dal loro incarico quando si candidano per la rielezione.»
- ^ (EN) James W. Endersby, L. Marvin Overby, Congress and the Constitution: The Twenty-seventh Amendment and the Past and Future of Constitutional Alteration, in Congress & the Presidency, vol. 45, n. 2, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, 4 maggio 2018, p. 7, DOI:10.1080/07343469.2018.1444682.
- ^ (EN) The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, su archives.gov, November 4, 2015. URL consultato il November 4, 2016.
- ^ a b c d (EN) Richard B. Bernstein, The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, in Fordham Law Review, vol. 61, 1992, pp. 497–557, 3. URL consultato il June 9, 2013.
- ^ Representative James Madison Argues for a Bill of Rights, su teachingamericanhistory.org, The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.
- ^ James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights, Oxford University Press, 2006, 235–237, ISBN 978-0-19-518105-0.
- ^ The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights, First Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, p. 186, ISBN 9780945612285.
- ^ a b c d John W. Dean, The Telling Tale of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, in FindLaw, September 27, 2002.
- ^ Richard B. Bernstein, The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, in Fordham Law Review, vol. 61, 1992.
- ^ (EN) Q&A with Gregory Watson | C-SPAN.org, su www.c-span.org, 15 luglio 2018. URL consultato il 30 luglio 2024. Ospitato su C-SPAN.
- ^ Scott Bomboy, How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment, May 7, 2018.
- ^ a b c Matt Largey, The Bad Grade That Changed The U.S. Constitution, NPR, May 5, 2017.
- ^ Stephen E. Frantzich, Citizen Democracy: Political Activists in a Cynical Age, 3rd, New York, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008, pp. 12–14, ISBN 9780742564459.
- ^ 27: Congressional pay raises, November 27, 2002.
- ^ (EN) Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), su justia.com.
- ^ (EN) Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), su justia.com.
- ^ Ruth Ann Strickland, The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Constitutional Change by Stealth, in PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 26, n. 4, Cambridge University Press, December 1993, p. 719, DOI:10.2307/419537.
- ^ Scott Bomboy, How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment, su blog.constitutioncenter.org, National Constitution Center, May 7, 2016.
- ^ Sean Rowley, 27th amendment aimed at congressional pay, su tahlequahdailypress.com, September 2, 2014.
- ^ POM-624 (PDF), in Congressional Record – Senate, June 21, 1996, p. 14940.
- ^ a b c d e (EN) Ken Herman, Herman: 35 years later, A+ for Austinite who got Constitution amended?, in Austin American-Statesman, March 14, 2017.
- ^ (EN) The Bad Grade That Changed The U.S. Constitution, su npr.org.
- ^ (EN) Grades – Texas One Stop, su onestop.utexas.edu.
- ^ Bill: HCR 145, su capitol.texas.gov.
- ^ NC General Assembly webmasters, North Carolina General Assembly – House Bill 1052 Information/History (1989–1990 Session), su ncleg.net.
- ^ a b (EN) Chapter XII, June Session 1792, Frankfort, William Hunter., 1809, pp. 76–77.
- ^ a b c James J. Kilpatrick (a cura di), The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto, Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, 1961, p. 64.
- ^ Congressional Record of the 102nd Congress, Volume 138 – Part 9, May 19, 1992, p. 11656.
- ^ a b Laura Michaelis, Both Chambers Rush to Accept 27th Amendment on Salaries, in Congressional Quarterly, May 23, 1992, p. 1423.
- ^ David E. Kyvig, Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776–1995, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1996, 467, 546n17, ISBN 9780700607921.
- ^ a b c The Organic Laws of the United States of America (TXT), su uscode.house.gov.
- ^ JoAnne Young, It took awhile, but add Nebraska's name to the list, su journalstar.com, April 1, 2016.
- ^ Certification of Twenty-seventh Amendment (PDF), in Federal Register, vol. 57, National Archives and Records Administration, May 19, 1992.
- ^ 30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
- ^ 240 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2001)
- ^ Rachel Weiner, Is "No Budget No Pay" constitutional?, Washington Post
- ^ a b Bruce Moyer, The Rise of Paycheck Politics, Washington Watch (Federal Bar Association), April 2013.
Bibliografia
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]- (EN) Johnny H. Killian e George A. Costello (a cura di), The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, su La versione online della Biblioteca del Congresso, regolarmente aggiornata, Washington, United States Government Publishing Office, luglio 2015, Senate Document No. 103–6.
Voci correlate
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]Altri progetti
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]
Collegamenti esterni
[modifica | modifica wikitesto]- (EN) Congressional Compensation and Debates over Ratification of the Constitution, su LII / Legal Information Institute. URL consultato il 7 settembre 2024.
- (EN) The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, su National Archives, 4 novembre 2015. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. Archivio nazionale: Carta dei diritti, compreso il ventisettesimo emendamento
- (EN) Primary Documents in American History - Research Guides at Library of Congress, su guides.loc.gov. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. Link alla pagina dei documenti primari della Carta dei diritti della Biblioteca del Congresso
- Risoluzioni congressuali di riconoscimento della ratifica:
- (EN) S.Con.Res.120 - A concurrent resolution declaring an article of amendment to be the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [S.Con.Res.120 - Risoluzione concorrente che dichiara un articolo di emendamento come il Ventisettesimo Emendamento alla Costituzione degli Stati Uniti.], su www.congress.gov, Congress.gov. URL consultato il settembre 2024.
- (EN) H.Con.Res.320 - Declaring the ratification of the proposed amendment to the Constitution relating to compensation for Representatives and Senators. [H.Con.Res.320 - Dichiara la ratifica della proposta di emendamento alla Costituzione relativa all'indennità dei rappresentanti e dei senatori.], su www.congress.gov. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024.
- (EN) National Archives NextGen Catalog, su catalog.archives.gov. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. Certificazione del 27° emendamento presso l'Archivio Nazionale Accesso pubblico online
- (EN) Dallas College, The Unlikely Story of the 27th Amendment, 17 settembre 2014. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. La storia improbabile del 27° emendamento, intervista a Gregory Watson da parte del Dallas County Community College District su YouTube
- (EN) 27th Amendment to the Constitution | C-SPAN.org, su www.c-span.org. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. La registrazione del dibattito alla Camera dei Rappresentanti sul 27° Emendamento su C-SPAN
- (EN) The Daily Show, Thank Me Later - Gregory Watson's Fight for the 27th Amendment | The Daily Show, 4 maggio 2018. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. La lotta di Gregory Watson per il 27° emendamento: The Daily Show, intervista con Michael Kosta, pubblicata su YouTube il 4 maggio 2018.
- (EN) GovTrack.us, Will the Constitution ever be amended again? We asked the man behind the Twenty-Seventh Amendment., su Medium, 11 giugno 2017. URL consultato il 4 settembre 2024. La Costituzione sarà mai emendata di nuovo? Lo abbiamo chiesto all'uomo che sta dietro al Ventisettesimo Emendamento. Intervista di Govtrackinsider.com a Gregory Watson