Repeal the 27th amendment?

Yea so I admit a slight reluctance at writing this blog. See my normal theory of life is that if someone tells you repealing a constitutional amendment will fix everything that person is a moron who doesn't actually understand the amendment. Most popularly, you see this with those who think repealing the 16th amendment would make income tax illegal, which would magically fix the tax code, ect.......even though the income tax existed as legal prior to the 16th amendment. (by a good few decades).

But the thing is, sometimes, especially when they arnt claiming its a magic pill for everything, repealing or editing could actually work. Here I'm thinking of those who want to change the 14th amendment to remove the word "birth" from the citizenship cause, thereby paving the way for fetal personhood//citizenship.

Of course the law of unintended consequences would enter as well. While that change would make it possible maybe to de facto outlaw abortions, that same change would mean that if a tourist got pregnant here, and then when back to her home country her offspring could be considered american....which is not something I think most of the pro life side would be ok with (moving from anchor baby fears to anchor fetuses)

Point is, if you understand the amendment or not, their are very few that are easy to remove or change without creating another possible problem.

That said, their does seem one amendment people at the moment would likely see done away with.....but its not one of the popular ones you hear about people wanting to overturn all the time (2nd, 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th, and 26th, depending on the circles you travel in)

Its actually our "newest" amendment the 27th.

I put "newest" in "" because it turns out the amendment has a rather long and complicated history, starting with the fact it was supposed to be the 2nd amendment, and was written by the founding fathers.

See when the Bill of Rights was first proposed it contained 12 amendments and not 10 as we were all taught in school. Yes only 10 managed to pass, but both the intended 1st and 2nd amendment failed to get ratified by enough states to become law.

But unlike pretty much every amendment that followed, the proposed 2nd (and 1st) amendment had no time limit on how long states had to ratify. And there was a push in the 1980's to once again pass the intended first amendment, a push that became successful on either may 5th or may 7th 1992.

I say either, because a handful of states, starting with Maryland (1789), had ratified the amendment back in the 1700's, including the state of Kentucky......which forgot to keep good records, therefore people forgot they had ratified it, a discovery that wasnt made until after the amendment passed. So the ratification on may 7th 92 by Michigan is officially the one that put the amendment over the top, but arguably should have been Alabama's ratification on the 5th that had done so.

Point is, at some point in May 1992, the intended 2nd amendment became the 27th amendment.....and is causing all kinds of trouble these days.

See this is the wording of the 2nd/27th amendment.

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

To translate, it means no change congresses pay can go into effect until after the next congressional election. Congress can vote to change its pay whenever it wants, but the pay change wont happen until after a congressional election.

This is why when the House GOP introduced the "No Budget No Pay" act, it didnt actually affect their pay, and was nothing but a cheap political stunt. And earlier this week Democratic Senator Bill Nelson became the most recent (that I'm aware of anyways) person to suggest that because of the sequester, congress should be forced to take a pay cut.

But it turns out once again its a stunt. I'm sure Senator Nelson is well aware of the 27th amendment, so he knows his idea is flat out unconstitutional, as does everyone else from both sides who proposes something similar.

Yet the reason both sides continue to suggest this (or things like it) is because the idea is MASSIVELY popular at the moment.

And that in my opinion is where things get a little odd. I suppose nothing is that odd about having a huge majority disagree with an amendment to the Constitution, but I do think its a bit odd that elected officials are basically fueling this, while pretending the amendment doesn't actually exist/refusing to mention it.

Seems to me their is much more consensus behind repealing/editing the 27th amendment (or would be if people knew it existed) then any of the other "controversial" amendments I mentioned before.

Yet somehow no one is actually calling for any changes in this case.

And that right there I think is actually indicative of the problem in politics these days. People see a problem, but have chosen to learn so little about the government, they dont realize the solution they want (correct or not) is not doable.....unless something else gets fixed first. (repealing or editing the amendment)

But unlike a lot of things in politics, this isnt some obscure thing hidden in the bowels of the House Rules or Supreme Court Precedent. This is right their in front of their eyes, in the Constitution  if only the american people would look.

Point is, that while personally opposed to touching the 27th amendment, I just find it fascinating that an amendment so controversial and/or seemingly unneeded it took 202 1/2 years to pass it has both become so central to today's political games and so totally totally forgotten by the american people, they cant even remember it exists.

Normally it would be a matter of time before someone called for the repeal of an amendment they dont like....in this case I'm much more interested to see if anyone will ever actually realize the amendment exists in the first place, so that they know they could call for its repeal.