This summer, Constitution Daily will be holding a virtual town hall to debate 10 issues that could be proposed as The Next 10 Amendments. The discussion will begin in late May, just like the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and end on September 17, the anniversary of when the Constitution was signed.

Every seven to 10 days, we’ll present a constitutional issue, offering historical context and related primary documents to frame the discussion. The 10 issues were chosen based on a composite of multiple public polls.

For each issue, you can share your thoughts–and offer suggestions for a potential constitutional amendment about that issue.

Then, in early September, cast your vote in a referendum on potential amendments, gathered from participant comments.

Chris Phillips, research fellow of the Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing at the University of Pennsylvania and executive director of the nonprofit organization Democracy Café, will serve as “convention moderator” and lead discussions. Perspectives from other constitutional experts will also be featured.

Here are the constitutional issues up for deliberation, along with key tentative discussion dates:

Discussions

1. May 28: Right to bear arms
2. June 5: Balanced budget amendment
3. June 14: Equal rights for all
4. June 23: Term limits for Congress
5. July 3: Strict separation of church and state
6. July 12: Limits on campaign spending by candidates for federal office
7. July 22: Federal regulation of marriage
8. July 31: Ban on burning or desecrating the American flag
9. August 9: Direct election of the president and vice president
10. August 19: Right to privacy
11. August 30: Final debate over amendments

Voting

1. September 4: Voting begins
2. September 10: Voting ends
3. September 17: Results announced

The final results of The Next 10 Amendments will be announced at the National Constitution Center’s annual Constitution Day celebration on September 17, in conjunction with our national live chat with constitutional scholars and educators.

This summer, join the conversation—and see how “We the People” would amend our Constitution.

Lois G. Lerner, the head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations office, said in advance of Wednesday’s testimony she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer questions from House members during committee hearings about the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lerner then appeared before the committee, read a prepared statement, and said she was invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.

“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said in her statement. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

“Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I’ve done something wrong. I have not,” she said. “One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.”

Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, quickly insisted that Lerner had to answer questions from the committee, and pointed to opening remarks by Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland.

“Mr. Cummings said that we should run this like a courtroom and I agree with him,” said Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor. “She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.”

Cummings then  made his point.

“With all respect for my good friend Mr. Gowdy, I said I would like to see it run like a federal court,” Cummings said. “Unfortunately, this is not a federal court and she does have a right and I think we have to adhere to that.”

Then, a few hours after the hearing, Committee chairman Darrell Issa told Politico that Lerner lost her Fifth Amendment  rights by making her statement–about having the rights.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told Politico. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, explained to New York magazine why Lerner was within her rights. (Duane made his comments after the hearing ended and before Issa made his announcement.)

“When [someone is] involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves,” Duane said.

He also believes that “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.”

That theory will now get tested, since Issa indicated he may call Lerner back to testify again, without the ability to cite the Fifth Amendment.

Stan Brand, a former general counsel for the House of Representatives, told Politico that Lerner could have an issue if she waived her rights in prior appearances before Congress.

Prior to Lerner’s appearance, her attorney, William W. Taylor III, wrote to Issa and explained why his client was taking the Fifth Amendment.

Taylor said that prior claims by Issa that Lerner had provided misleading information to Congress on four occasions left his client without another option.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” Taylor said.

And in a statement to the Washington Post, Taylor said his client didn’t waive her Fifth Amendment rights.

“The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of the wrongdoing with which she is accused,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Post.

An article from USA Today lists people who were government employees or private citizens who’ve been called before Congress and “taken the Fifth.”

Officials from the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the General Services Administration have invoked the Fifth in recent years. Celebrities such as White House gate-crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi and baseball star Mark McGwire also declined to answer questions before Congress.

The various rights and protections under the Fifth Amendment make it one of the most powerful tools in the Bill of Rights.

In addition to protecting people from incriminating themselves, the Fifth Amendment provides for grand juries; protects people from being tried twice for the same crime; and provides due process under the law.

In 1966, the Supreme Court found, as part of its historic Miranda v. Arizona decision, that the right to protect against self-incriminating testimony existed outside of a courtroom.

“There can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves,” the court said.

A later Supreme Court case, Ohio v. Reiner, stated that the Fifth Amendment “protects the innocent as well as the guilty” and that any information “which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant” is valid cause to invoke Fifth Amendment rights.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

National Constitution Center to display original copy of the Bill of Rights

Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?

Can President Obama influence the public debate on drone attacks?

Edmund Ross

Johnson succeeded the presidency in 1865 after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. A former Democrat who ran as a candidate alongside Lincoln, President Johnson’s relationship with the GOP leadership quickly crumbled.

A faction called the Radical Republicans, led by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, dominated the GOP.

On February 24, 1868, President Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives. The House charged Johnson with violating the Tenure of Office Act.

The alleged violation stemmed from Johnson’s decision to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, a prominent Radical Republican left over from the Lincoln Cabinet. To block Johnson from removing Cabinet members without its approval, the House passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867.

Johnson challenged the act by firing Stanton and appointing an interim replacement. The House quickly filed 11 impeachment charges, sending the case to the Senate for disposition.

Two-thirds of the Senate was needed to convict Johnson, and the Republicans made up more than two-thirds of its members. Chief Justice Salmon Chase presided over the trial, which started in March and ended in  late May. Thaddeus Stevens was one of the House prosecutors.

In the end, however, seven Republican senators voted against impeachment.

The dramatic scene would have fit right in with the movie Lincoln, with the outcome seemingly in doubt until the last undecided vote was cast.

“It is a singular fact that not one of the actors in that high scene was sure in his own mind how his one senator was going to vote, except, perhaps, himself,” said historian David Miller Dewitt.

The key day in the trial was May 16. The anti-Johnson forces were counting on a guilty vote on 11th and last article of impeachment. It was the first order of business and a summary of the other 10 articles. If President Johnson was found guilty in the first vote, he was out of office.

Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas cast the deciding vote, and for all purposes, he was expected to vote against Johnson, up until the night before the final roll call.

The chamber was stunned when Ross said “Not guilty.” The Radical Republicans asked for an adjournment until May 26, partly because of an upcoming party conventions, but also because they had no plan of attack after assuming Johnson wouldn’t survive the first vote. After failing at two other attempts on May 26, two more articles failed, and the trial ended.

The controversy, to this day, is why did Ross change his mind?

There were two serious constitutional issues involved in the trial. One was that some people didn’t think the Tenure of Office Act was constitutional. The other was that the Constitution, at that point, didn’t specify who became vice president when the president died or couldn’t serve.

If Johnson had been impeached, the Senate president pro tempore, Benjamin Wade, would have assumed the duties of the office until the next election. Wade had his own enemies within the Republican Party, including Ross (who saw Wade taking away his patronage powers in Kansas).

One theory is that Ross didn’t follow his constitutional conscience—he followed the cash. Ross may have been the beneficiary of a $150,000 slush fund set up by Johnson’s supporters.

In a 1999 article for Slate, writer David Greenberg pointed out another fact: Ross’s vote may not have been needed.

“At least four other senators were prepared to oppose conviction had their votes been needed–a fact that has been forgotten, maybe, because it doesn’t square with the High Noon portrait of Ross as the man of principle facing down the mob,” Greenberg said.

In later years, Ross was portrayed as a hero in John F. Kennedy’s book Profiles in Courage. Others, like historian David O. Stewart, paint a less flattering portrait of Ross when it comes to allegations of bribery and patronage spoils.

Ross lost re-election after the Senate trial and later switched to the Democratic party. He blamed the Senate trial vote for hurting his political career.

Then in 1885, the first Democratic president to take office since the Civil War, Grover Cleveland, named Ross as the governor of the New Mexico territory.

Recent Historical Stories

How Philly lost the nation’s capital to Washington

The Mexican-American war in a nutshell

10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant

The statements at issue:

“The American people deserve answers about how such seemingly unconstitutional and potentially criminal behavior could occur, and who else was aware of it throughout the Administration.”

– Senator Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, in a letter Monday to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, calling for the Treasury’s “full cooperation with all investigations” of the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service’s actions in making it tougher for specific ideological organizations to gain tax-exempt status under federal law.

“If the initial reports are verified, it is breathtaking that the IRS seems to be harassing mom & pop tea party organizations while ignoring what appear to be blatant abuses of the tax status right under its nose by groups pumping tens of millions of dollars into partisan political advertising.”

– J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group promoting election finance reform, in a statement on Monday reacting to the scandal.

We checked the Constitution, and…

It is a core constitutional principle that the federal government cannot use its awesome powers—over taxes, or anything else—to single out groups because of their political views and treat them more harshly. That violates their rights of free speech and free association under the First Amendment, and their rights against arbitrary government action under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

But, even as the IRS scandal over the tax-exempt status of tea party–related political groups stirs widespread criticism, it may be harder to keep in mind also that, constitutionally, no group in America has a right to be exempted from taxes. A right to equal treatment by the IRS is not the same thing as a right to an exemption.

Someone within IRS, acting properly and within the law, has to make a decision about whether a group can qualify for an exemption from paying federal taxes. And the law is quite clear that organizations that are set up to do charitable work are not allowed to get or keep tax-exempt status if they are actively engaged in political campaign activity, or in lobbying Congress. If an organization is set up to promote a particular policy agenda, benefiting the “general welfare” of the people, however, it might qualify for tax-exemption even if it does some lobbying related to its policy goals, but it might risk that status (or be denied it in the first place) if its political actions become its “primary activity.”

As is obvious from such a general summary, someone has to interpret when an organization seeking to be relieved of paying taxes is doing too much or the wrong kind of lobbying or politicking.

The IRS has been immersed in controversy for years about how it enforces the limitations that do exist. The new scandal, of course, is a very different controversy, because it involves claims of a serious abuse of government power, not of inaction or administrative agency laziness. But the new scandal will only intensify the already insistent demands that the IRS do something to reform its tax-exempt review process.

The IRS, for example, still has not resolved complaints that it has hesitated to monitor the kinds of political activity in which the new super PACs can engage and still obtain or retain an exemption. That issue was stirred up by the actions of scores of PACs in last year’s presidential election, and the IRS has yet to indicate what it will do—if anything—about that.

While lawyers for 10 tea party groups with exemption requests pending asked the IRS on Monday to immediately grant those requests, or else face legal action, it is not clear that the new scandal itself must necessarily lead the IRS to do so. Again, while any IRS review of a pending application would have to be done within the rules and without discrimination, past misconduct by that agency does not translate into a mandate to start granting exemptions in batches to victims of its prior abuses.

Obviously, a lawsuit filed on behalf of any group still awaiting a response from the IRS is sure to make the point that each such group is a victim of the scandal, and the only proper remedy for that is an exemption, granted without delay. But each court reviewing such a legal claim will take the time to determine if a particular group has made the connection. Even if a court finds that a specific entity was victimized, that would not necessarily lead to an order for an exemption. That is an issue of tax law that has to be sorted out organization by organization. A court might order the IRS to give a group a fair hearing, but might not tell it to grant a specific exemption without proof that it actually satisfied the legal standards.

And there is another legal obstacle that any such lawsuit might have to overcome. Ordinarily, a court will not review an IRS order dealing with the exemption question until after such a request has been formally denied. That is the kind of final action that could set judicial review in motion. The mere fact that a request remains pending would not mean it had been denied.

At this stage, it seems most likely that the scandal will unfold primarily within the political branches of the federal government, with hearings in Congress to establish what went wrong and who was responsible, and with efforts in the executive branch to order some reforms without waiting for the possibility of new legislation curbing the IRS’s review powers.

There will be constitutional complaints, of the kind that Senator Rubio made in his letter to the Treasury on Monday, but it could be some time before firm answers are available on whose rights were actually violated. Initially, though, that is most likely to be a judgment that is made politically rather than judicially.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
What is the agency that blew the whistle on the IRS?
Tax trivia: Why do we have the IRS (and other factoids)?
The Mexican-American war in a nutshell
Animal cruelty video laws present a First Amendment debate

TIGTA, or the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, has a special position in the Treasury Department—it audits the IRS. Basically, it’s the IRS of the IRS.

The fallout from the leaked TIGTA report has been swift and sudden, with conservative groups demanding a congressional investigation. On Monday, President Barack Obama said if the allegations were true, they were “outrageous” and the people involved would be “held fully accountable.”

Reuters and other news outlets obtained parts of the report over the weekend. It will be released publicly and in full this week.

On Friday, Lois Lerner, the director of exempt organizations for the IRS, acknowledged the “inappropriate” targeting of some groups by the IRS for closer scrutiny on their nonprofit applications.

Lerner said the behavior was limited to a Cincinnati branch office and that no applications that were targeted for closer inspection were denied.

The language in the draft said that groups that were also targeted included those with mission statements such as advancing  “political action type organizations involved in limiting or expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, [and] social economic reform/movement[s].”

TIGTA functions as a watchdog group whose mission is to “provide integrated audit, investigative, and inspection and evaluation services that promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the administration of the Internal Revenue laws.”

Among its goals are protecting the safety of IRS employees; determining fraud, waste, and abuse at the IRS; and informing the people, Congress, and the Treasury secretary about problems at the IRS.

The idea of an IRS watchdog didn’t originate with the Founding Fathers or even the early version of the IRS that dates back to the Civil War era.

TIGTA was established in January 1999 as part of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 to provide independent oversight of IRS activities.

It assumed most responsibilities held by the IRS’s former Inspection Service, which was established in 1952 as part of the creation of the modern Internal Revenue Service under the direction of President Harry Truman.

Prior to that, the IRS was run using a patronage system, and the reorganization in 1952 put career professionals in charge of the service.

Under its current mandate, TIGTA has broad powers to make sure the $2 trillion (yes, that’s trillion with a T) handled by the IRS is accounted for.

Related Link: All about TIGTA

In addition to its power to audit the IRS, TIGTA has the power to conduct investigations. Once a problem is identified by its Office of Investigations, a special agent will investigate claims, and if warranted will refer them to the Justice Department or local authorities for prosecution.

All investigations concerning IRS employees are referred to IRS management for administrative action if misconduct is found.

TIGTA is part of the Treasury Department, but it also testifies before Congress on certain matters.

J. Russell George is the current Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. He was nominated to the post in 2004 by President George W. Bush and approved by the U.S. Senate.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa was among those who requested a TIGTA report after allegations that some nonprofits were seeing application approval delays.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Historical Stories
Tax Day trivia: Why do we have the IRS (and other factoids)?
Can the United Nations really tax and censor the Internet?
The Mexican-American war in a nutshell
Animal cruelty video laws present a First Amendment debate

John Dickinson

In September 1774, when America’s First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia, there were no “united states,” just a collection of British colonies largely going their separate ways whose primary loyalty was to a distant British king. The brilliant, though occasionally cranky, Massachusetts delegate John Adams described the assembled delegates as a “gathering of strangers,” complaining that “the art of address of Ambassadors from a dozen belligerent Powers of Europe . . . would not exceed the Specimens We have seen here.”

Yet by July 4, 1776, the members of that congress, in spite of the significant differences in interests and ideology among them, were able to come together on that audacious decision to break all ties with Britain–a decision that makes congressional quarreling over debt ceilings, sequesters, or judicial appointments seem utterly trivial.

The critical question facing those 18th-century politicians was no different than those facing our politicians today–how to transcend their differences and find the path toward serving the common good. How was it that the founders were able to achieve that transcendence when our political leaders seem so hopelessly mired in partisan, and trivial, acrimony?

Some of the answers lie in the seriousness of the conflict with an imperial ruler. The First Continental Congress convened in order to fashion a united American response to Britain’s Coercive Acts, a series of parliamentary statutes aimed at punishing the colony of Massachusetts and, in particular, the “fanatics” of Boston who had dumped 92,000 pounds of tea in the town harbor. And, as the conflict with Britain escalated to life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, the stakes were raised, and congressional representatives from other parts of the country began to realize that a threat to one colony could soon be a threat to all.

But it was not only the increasingly dangerous external threat posed by the British army and navy that brought America’s congressional representatives together. For most of the 22 months between September 1774 and July 4, 1776, those “strangers” from across the more than 330,000 square miles of American territory lived together in cramped quarters in Philadelphia’s boardinghouses, and drank and dined together daily in the city’s taverns. Unlike their congressional counterparts today, who spend three or four days a week in Washington and then fly off to raise money for their next political campaign, the members of America’s revolutionary Congress worked and lived together. They acquired a level of familiarity and respect for one another that is altogether missing in politics today.

The months between January and early July of 1776 were particularly difficult for the 56 men living together in Philadelphia. They were months during which, as Adams’ older cousin Sam described them, “the child independence was struggling to be born.” When Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee finally introduced a resolution proposing independence on June 7, as many as five or six colonial delegations resisted the move.

On July 1, when the highly respected Philadelphia lawyer John Dickinson delivered a long and carefully prepared speech warning that a precipitous move for independence might result in burning towns, bloodshed, and ignominious defeat, there were many in the room who shared his fears, and many others who were still sitting on the fence. In a straw vote about 7 that evening, nine colonial delegations voted in favor of Lee’s resolution for independence. South Carolina and Pennsylvania opposed it, Delaware was divided, and New York abstained. The advocates of independence had obtained their majority. But they knew that even a two-thirds majority on a matter of such epochal importance would not be sufficient.

By the next morning, a divided American congress became a united one. Although New York’s delegates would have to wait until July 9 before getting their legislature’s official permission to support independence, the other three colonies that had withheld their backing on July 1 came around. The dynamic in each of those colonies differed, but it was the actions of the Pennsylvania delegates–representatives of the country’s most rapidly growing and economically powerful colony, whose support for independence was vital to its success–that provide us with the most instructive lesson in political leadership.

Dickinson still controlled the balance of power within his colony’s delegation. He remained committed to the position that he had taken the previous day, but in the decisive vote on July 2, he, along with his Pennsylvania colleague Robert Morris, withdrew “behind the bar”–the rail which to this day keeps visitors from walking into the space in which the delegates to the Congress were doing their business–thus enabling a bare majority of the Pennsylvania delegation to cast votes in favor of independence.

Dickinson’s decision to absent himself from the vote was every bit as much an expression of his love of country as was the passionate advocacy of independence by his frequent political adversary John Adams. A few days later, Dickinson would give yet another demonstration of his love of country by leading a battalion of Pennsylvania militiamen in battle against the British army in Elizabethtown, New Jersey.

The behavior of those members of Congress who reluctantly added their assent to independence on July 2, as well as that of men like Dickinson, who went “behind the bar,” provides us with an example of what may be the most striking difference between the politicians of 1776 and those who sit in Congress today. They understood that there were at least some occasions in which the attribute of humility–the ability to subordinate one’s personal opinions in the name of unity and consensus–was a vital ingredient in serving the public good. Don’t we wish that our elected officials today could carry out their business with at least some of that sense of humility?

Richard R. Beeman is the author of “Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor: The Forging of American Independence, 1774-1776,” the John Welsh Centennial Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, and a trustee at the National Constitution Center. He will discuss his book on Monday at 6:30 p.m. at the Constitution Center. The program will be moderated by Jeffrey Rosen, the center’s new president and CEO. For reservations, call 215.409.6700, or visit constitutioncenter.org.

Recent Historical Stories
10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman
10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison

The commentators were out in full force on Tuesday night when it quickly became apparent Sanford would easily defeat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a runoff election.

Columnist Alex Isenstadt from Politico summed up much of the national coverage.

“South Carolinians may not love former Gov. Mark Sanford. They may still have a bad taste in their mouths after his governorship. They may even wonder whether they can entirely trust him. But in the end, they decided he was as good as they were going to get,” Isenstadt said.

And it seems the electoral process still works in South Carolina, despite the highly unusual circumstances of the Sanford-Colbert Busch race.

It was dissatisfaction in the U.S. Senate that opened the door for Sanford’s political comeback. Jim DeMint, the powerful tea party leader from South Carolina, quit the Senate last year to take a much-higher-paying job at the Heritage Foundation.

The Constitution allows a state to empower its governor, in this case, Nikki Haley, to appoint someone to replace a senator, via the 17th Amendment. Haley picked Representative Tim Scott to replace DeMint.

That left an opening in the U.S. House delegation for South Carolina. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, also says that House openings need to be filled by a direct election, and not by a governor or a state legislature. Haley had the power to order the election.

The winner in last night’s race will serve out Scott’s term in the House and stand for re-election in 2014.

Sanford started as an underdog in the race, but easily beat Colbert Busch, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert. Here are three takeaways from the experience:

1. Celebrity doesn’t matter that much in politics. Both candidates had a fair share of national attention. Sanford became a national figure after he was believed to be hiking on the Appalachian Trail as governor, when he was actually in Argentina seeing his mistress. Colbert Busch’s brush with fame was tied to her brother. In the end, it was a local election.

2. Polls don’t matter much, either. An early poll from the Democratic-leaning group PPP had Colbert Busch up by nine points on Sanford two weeks ago—after the former governor got into a trespassing dispute with his ex-wife. Another poll from PPP had Sanford with a one-point lead the day before the election. The final margin was closer to nine points for Sanford.

3. The democratic process works. Regardless of how you feel about Sanford or Colbert Busch, the election was carried out quickly to fill a vacant House seat. There are a lot of key budget votes and other measures coming up in Congress, and the people of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District will have a representative.

How Sanford will vote in Congress and work with the GOP leadership in Washington is another matter.

Speaker John Boehner and the national Republican Party leadership were not supportive of his campaign. But other figures, like Haley and Senators Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, backed Sanford.

In the end, Sanford used old-fashioned campaign tactics like barnstorming, and linking Colbert Busch to national Democrats in a highly Republican area to achieve his comeback.

It is a precursor to the 2014 midterm elections, where the GOP faces its own divisions. In 2010, the tea party wave shook up the party and showed that candidates didn’t need national support to win U.S. Senate and House elections.

This is particularly important in the U.S. Senate, where 21 of 35 seats up for grabs in 2014 are currently controlled by Democrats. However, in seven of the 21 states with Democrats in the Senate, the GOP won electoral votes in 2012.

The Republicans need to gain six Senate seats to gain full control of Congress.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
How the Sanford race compares with other unusual elections
10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman
Constitution Check: What is the government’s role on teen sex?

The 27th amendment is our most recent amendment, ratified in 1992. It reads:

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

In short, a sitting Congress can’t change its pay while it is in session for two years. But it can give the next Congress a raise.

It’s not a new idea. The amendment was proposed back in 1789 by James Madison along with other amendments that became the Bill of Rights, but it took 203 years for it to become the law of the land.

Since then, the 27th Amendment had gotten very little publicity until the past few months, with support emerging on all sides—for congressional pay delays, cuts, or even raises.

In January, the issue of congressional pay became a sideshow as part of the debate over the federal government’s budget.

The House and Senate agreed to a debt-ceiling compromise embodied in the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. A key part of the legislation would delay pay to members of the House or Senate if they didn’t approve a budget by mid-April. (So technically, it would have been more accurately called the No Budget, Delayed Pay Act.)

Many scholars saw a conflict with the 27th Amendment, since even delaying pay counts as “varying the compensation.” Congressional leaders were clearly aware of the concern; a section of the bill says the delayed-pay option prevents a “violation of the 27th article of Amendment to the Constitution.”

The Senate passed its first proposed budget in four years in March; the House also passed a proposed budget.

The 27th Amendment also popped up in the debate over the sequester, the forced across-the-board federal spending cuts imposed after another congressional impasse.

Members of the House and Senate were immune to pay cuts and furloughs, unlike many other government workers, because such cuts would change their pay while Congress is in session—in violation of the 27th Amendment.

Several Congress members did agree to voluntarily return part of their pay to the Treasury Department in a show of support for sequestered workers.

In March, some House representatives introduced bills that would cut the pay of the next Congress by at least 8 percent, an amount equivalent to the cuts to other workers’ pay triggered by the sequester. In April, Don Barber, a U.S. House representative from Arizona, pushed for a 20 percent pay cut for Congress in its next term.

Despite Congress’ low approval ratings, not everyone thinks Congress deserves a pay freeze or pay cut.

Congress hasn’t seen a pay hike since 2009. Its members are now paid $174,000 per year on average.

One person who endorsed a small pay raise for Congress was President Obama, who signed an executive order late last year that gave House and Senate members a 1 percent raise as part of hike for federal workers. Congress rejected the offer.

Dan Schuman, a policy counsel for the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, caused a bit of stir on Slate.com in an April opinion piece that advocated for large pay raises for Congress.

“Many very competent people no longer want the job,” he argued, pointing to the much higher salaries at lobby groups, as well as other countries that pay their public officials more.

If Congress had accepted a cost-of-living raise for the past four years, its average compensation would be $183,000 a year based on COLA estimates, or an 8 percent raise from 2008.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

10 WPA posters that are Pinterest-worthy 80 years later

Happy birthday, 27th Amendment!

Japan’s constitutional changes could echo through Asia

Source: Mokra (Stock Exchange).

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the 27th Amendment (ratified May 7, 1992). Here’s what you need to know:

WHAT IT DOES

The 27th Amendment makes sure that members of Congress can’t vote for their own pay raises (or pay cuts)–any change in compensation won’t take effect until the next election.

WHY IT WAS ADDED

The 27th Amendment, which is the most recent addition to the Constitution, was actually among the amendments that James Madison proposed in 1789. Ten of those amendments were approved and became known as the Bill of Rights, but this one languished for another 203 years, making it the longest ratification process in U.S. history.

So what revived Madison’s original vision? In 1982, Gregory Watson, a 20-year-old college student at the University of Texas, Austin, wrote a paper on Madison’s unratified proposal. He launched a letter-writing campaign and within a decade, in large part thanks to his efforts, what would have been the Second Amendment was passed as the 27th Amendment.

WORD-FOR-WORD

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Civic holidays are occasions to commemorate America’s history, celebrate our rights and responsibilities as citizens, and learn about our constitutional ideals. Download a PDF of the 2013 Civic Calendar here.

Holly Munson is the assistant editor of Constitution Daily.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

10 WPA posters that are Pinterest-worthy 80 years later

Should Congress see a pay cut or a pay raise?

Happy birthday, 27th Amendment!

Japan’s constitutional changes could echo through Asia

On May 6, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order that created the WPA, a federal assistance program aimed at putting Americans back to work at a time when unemployment was near 20 percent. At its peak, it employed 3.3. million Americans.

The WPA’s legacy is everywhere—its workers built or worked on hundreds of thousands of infrastructure projects, from roads and bridges to schools, parks, and hospitals.

The WPA also employed artists to create thousands of posters that promoted social ideals of the time as well as federal programs supporting education, culture, health, safety, and tourism.

As described by Posters for the People, a traveling exhibition about WPA posters, “Through their distinct imagery and clear and simple messages, the posters of the WPA provide a unique snapshot of an important era in America’s past.”

Today, many of those now-iconic posters are online, thanks to the Library of Congress and projects like Posters for the People.

Online today, the messages that tend to resonate are those about travel and reading. Here’s a sampling of 10 of the most popular, pinnable posters.

1. See America—Montana

2. A trip around the world

3. Understanding the arts

4. John is not really dull

5. See America—caverns

6. Be kind to books

7. Spare our trees

8. Read books in March

9. Wild life

10. Once upon a time

All images courtesy Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. Source links: See America—Montana; A trip around the world; Understanding the arts; John is not really dull; See America—caverns; Be kind to books; Spare our trees; Read books in March; Wild life; Once upon a time.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Japan’s constitutional changes could echo through Asia
10 WPA posters that are Pinterest-worthy 80 years later
The day the Supreme Court killed Hollywood’s studio system
Law Day 2013: 10 famous people who were lawyers