Historical Context and Origin
James Madison proposed twelve amendments in 1789. Ten became the Bill of Rights, while one lingered – the future 27th Amendment. Its premise: no pay raises for Congress without an election intervening.
Benjamin Franklin cautioned about giving Congress control over its finances, fearing self-interested politicians. The Framers rejected his suggestion to skip pay entirely, realizing only the wealthy could serve without salary. Article I, Section 6 granted Congress control over salaries, which Madison disliked.
Initially, ratification stalled. Only six states approved by 1792. Interest vanished until Gregory Watson, a political science student, discovered it in 1982. Watson sprang into action, writing letters and igniting grassroots interest. States joined throughout the '80s, driven by disgust with congressional pay raises.
Wyoming ratified in 1978. After years of letter writing, Watson saw Michigan cast the final vote on May 7, 1992, concluding the amendment's 200-year journey.
During drafting, Framers recognized risks of parliament-like corruption seen in 18th-century England. They implemented the Incompatibility Clause but didn't remove Congress's ability to set its own pay. Madison knew a check was needed and proposed his pay restraint amendment.

Dormancy and Rediscovery
The 27th Amendment gathered dust for almost two centuries. Six states ratified by 1792, then silence. In 1939, Coleman v. Miller established that unless Congress specifies a ratification deadline, an amendment is timeless.
Gregory Watson unearthed this forgotten constitutional relic in 1982. He launched a one-man crusade, writing letters to state legislators. His pitch resonated with lawmakers tired of congressional pay raises. Maine ratified in 1983, Colorado in 1984.
By the '80s, people were fed up with Congress granting itself pay hikes. States started rejoining the ratification effort. When Michigan cast the deciding vote on May 7, 1992, reaching the 38-state threshold, it marked a pivotal moment. Two days later, the U.S. Archivist certified it as part of the Constitution.

Ratification Process
Madison's 1789 proposal initially attracted six states by 1792. Sporadic ratifications occurred later – Ohio in 1873 and Wyoming in 1978, likely due to congressional salary increases.
Watson's letter-writing campaign transformed the amendment into a rallying cry against legislative greed. State legislators caught on – New Mexico in 1983, Colorado in 1984. Public anger over self-awarded pay raises fueled the campaign.
- By the late '80s and early '90s, a string of ratifications followed.
- Michigan's ratification on May 7, 1992, completed the process.
- Two days later, U.S. Archivist Don W. Wilson certified the 27th Amendment.
In the 1990s, Congress and states affirmed Madison's vision's enduring relevance with near-unanimous votes.

Legal Challenges and Interpretations
Courts grappled with interpreting this addition and addressing modern financial schemes Congress might use to increase their pay.
In Boehner v. Anderson (1992), John Boehner challenged the Ethics Reform Act of 1989's salary bump and projected annual cost-of-living increases. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that since cost-of-living increases would kick in post-elections, they didn't violate the 27th Amendment.
Operation Rescue National v. United States (1997) saw an anti-abortion group claim legislative immunity was compensation under the 27th Amendment. The Massachusetts District Court clarified that legislative immunity wasn't compensation but protected the legislative process's integrity.
In Schaffer v. Clinton (2001), Rep. Bob Schaffer challenged the Ethics Reform Act's cost-of-living adjustments. The District Court and Tenth Circuit ruled that because these adjustments took effect after elections, they passed muster under the 27th Amendment.
These legal tussles underscore that Madison's revitalized 27th Amendment didn't exist in isolation. It faced testing in the courts, reaffirming it's not just about stopping Congress from immediate self-enrichment; it upheld the democratic process and people's right to veto legislative greed at the ballot box.

Controversies and Scholarly Debates
The 27th Amendment stirred up debates in academic and political circles. Critics questioned its legitimacy due to the 203-year gap between proposal and ratification. They argued this created a disconnect between the original context and modern conditions, calling it a "magic moment" problem.
However, the Supreme Court's decision in Coleman v. Miller stated that without a deadline, amendments can remain open for ratification indefinitely. This raised concerns about the potential revival of controversial historical amendments like the Corwin Amendment, which would have constitutionalized slavery.1
Proponents of the 27th Amendment argued from a constitutional originalist perspective. They pointed out that Article V of the Constitution doesn't mention time constraints unless explicitly stated. They viewed the amendment's ratification as fulfilling the constitutional requirements both in 1789 and 1992.
Key Arguments:
- Critics: Questioned legitimacy due to time gap
- Proponents: Argued from originalist perspective
- Public: Generally supported the amendment
The amendment gained public support, leading to its acceptance by Congress. Its implications of preventing in-session pay raises for legislators were generally seen as positive.
"The 27th Amendment demonstrates how grassroots action can revive constitutional safeguards that resonate with both historical and modern contexts."
While the amendment's ratification process sparked debate, its actual content aligns with the principle of keeping legislators accountable to public sentiment. The 27th Amendment serves as a testament to the enduring power of constitutional principles across centuries.
