Mr. Speaker, this month, May of 2017, marks the 25th Anniversary of the unusual ratification of the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Proposed to the state legislatures for…
Mr. Speaker, this month, May of 2017, marks the 25th Anniversary of the unusual ratification of the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Proposed to the state legislatures for ratification by the very First Congress in 1789, and sponsored by none other than James Madison, who was a Member of this House that year, it was finally incorporated into the Federal Constitution more than 202 years later when the Alabama Legislature became the 38th to approve it on this date in 1992.
Early in our nation's history, this constitutional amendment was adopted, pursuant to the Constitution's Article V, by the legislatures of Maryland and North Carolina in 1789, by those in South Carolina and Delaware in 1790, by those in Vermont and Virginia in 1791, as well as by that of Kentucky in 1792. But the proposal still had not gained the approval of enough states to be fully ratified. More than 80 years after Kentucky, Ohio lawmakers belatedly ratified it in 1873; but by then, with so many additional states having joined the Union, the ratification threshold had risen much higher. In order to become part of the U.S. Constitution today, with 50 states currently in the Union, a proposed constitutional amendment requires adoption by at least 38 states.
During its later years, as the amendment approached full ratification, I was privileged to personally contribute to this proposal formally becoming part of the U.S. Constitution. Before starting my congressional service in 2005, I was among those members of the Texas House of Representatives who voted ``aye'' on House Joint Resolution No. 6, on May 25, 1989, during the Regular Session of the 71st Texas Legislature, by which Texas lawmakers approved the amendment.
A common sense proposal, the amendment reads quite simply: ``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 other words, Members may set congressional salaries for the next term of office, but may not adjust their own wages during their current term.
It is safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that the 27th Amendment would never have made its way into the Federal Constitution were it not for the dogged persistence of an employee in the Texas House of Representatives by the name of Gregory Watson. Back in March 1982, Mr. Watson was a 19- year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin. At the same time, he had just recently been hired to work part-time for a Texas state representative at the nearby state Capitol building.
As instructed, Watson wrote a paper for a course entitled ``American Government'' at the University. He ended up choosing as the topic for that paper a still-pending proposed constitutional amendment that Congress had offered to the state legislatures for ratification some 192 years earlier. Intrigued, Watson argued in his paper that despite the proposed constitutional amendment having lingered before the nation's state legislators since the year 1789, it was still needed as a means of holding Congress accountable for its actions relative to Members' salary and he pointed out, in the paper, that the proposal had no deadline by which America's state lawmakers must have taken action. Hence, despite its age, the proposed amendment was still technically pending business before our country's state legislatures.
Watson turned in the academic paper and was disappointed to get it back later with a grade of ``C'' on it. He also received a ``C'' in the course overall. That stood for some 35 years until March 2017 when the overall course grade was officially raised to an ``A'' by UT-Austin upon formal petition of Watson's former professor.
Undaunted at the time by the original low grade on his term paper, Watson began in the spring of 1982 reaching out to seek sponsorship of the proposed constitutional amendment in the various state capitols across the United States. He was intent upon this amendment ultimately finding its way formally into the U.S. Constitution. The following year, 1983, the Maine Legislature became Watson's first success story. After that, in 1984, Colorado's lawmakers gave their approval. And from that point forward--with Watson vigorously pushing every step of the way--its momentum quickened until the proposal officially became the 27th Amendment to the Federal Constitution on May 5, 1992, a decade after Watson first learned of it.
From 1982 to present, Mr. Watson has been an institution in the halls of the Texas State Capitol in Austin, having been employed in both the Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate, during his decades- long career as state legislative staff. Working for a number of my then-colleagues, it was there that I first came to know Mr. Watson.
To commemorate the quarter century of the 27th Amendment's presence within the U.S. Constitution, and at the same time to congratulate Mr. Watson on the March 2017 raising of his overall course grade from ``C'' to ``A'', I include in the Record an article from the March 14, 2017, edition of the Austin American-Statesman.
Mr. Speaker, as we in the Congress debate various proposals to amend the Federal Constitution, it is important that we keep in mind the lessons that the 27th Amendment's unconventional path to ratification teach us about the power of the American people's wishes to ultimately prevail in our deliberations.
Herman: 35 years Later, A+ for Austinite Who Got Constitution Amended?
(By Ken Herman--American-Statesman Staff)
Looks like we're heading for a happier new ending on a
happy old story that some of you might not know about.
Gregory Watson seems headed for an upgrade.
We begin back in spring 1982 when Watson, then a University
of Texas student, signed up for Sharon Waite's GOV 310 course
on American Government. For his term paper, young Watson
researched the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, a hot topic of the day.
But Watson diverted when he came upon a book that listed
other proposed constitutional amendments proposed but never
ratified by the required three-fourths of the states.
``And this one instantly jumped out at me,'' he recalled.
``This one'' was proposed in 1789 and concerned
congressional pay raises. At the time Watson believed six
states had ratified it, with the most recent being Virginia
in 1791. (This turned out to be wrong; two others later did.)
Another key year here is 1917. Before that, Congress did
not put expiration dates on proposed constitutional
amendments. That meant the 1789 one was still in play, and
this gave birth to a term paper Watson recalls he titled,
``Can a proposed constitutional amendment to the U.S.
Constitution offered by Congress in 1789 still be ratified by
the state legislatures after all these years?''
OK, not a title that smoothly rolls off the tongue, but on
point.
The amendment says any pay hike members of Congress OK for
themselves can't take effect until after the subsequent U.S.
House election. The topic was hot in the early 1980s because
in 1981 Congress had, in Watson's words, ``slipped itself a
sneaky pay raise'' by tucking it into a coal miner health
care bill.
So Watson turned his paper in to the course teaching
assistant, who gave it a C-. Watson, a persistent fellow,
appealed to Waite.
``She said she'd take a look at it. So 1 gave it to her,''
Watson told me. ``And then the next class period, she kind of
physically tossed it back at me and said, `No change.' ''
He got a C in the course and says he was ``kind of, sort
of' angry at Waite and the T.A.
``So I said, `I will not let this disappoint me. I will go
out and get that thing ratified,' '' Watson said.
He did, starting by contacting lawmakers in Maine in 1983.
Watson's thing became the 27th (and most recent) amendment to
the U.S. Constitution in 1992.
And that was that. The U.S. Constitution had a new
amendment. And Watson still had a C in GOV 310.
About a year ago, UT government professor Zach Elkins and
KUT Managing Editor Matt Largey contacted Watson and
expressed interest in his story, but Watson didn't know what
they were up to.
He found out March 4, live and on stage at the Paramount
Theatre, where he had been invited for what he thought was to
be a Q&A about his involvement in amending the U.S.
Constitution. His story was one of several told at something
called Pop-Up Magazine, which is kind of a live newsmagazine.
Several other topics came up before Largey's telling of
Watson's story, who then was invited on stage.
``It was at that point that professor Elkins handed me the
envelope,'' Watson said.
The envelope contained an Update of Student Academic Record
form requesting that his 1982 grade in the government course
be changed from C to A+. It was signed by Waite.
In the space for ``Explanation of error, delay or special
circumstances,'' Waite wrote, ``In light of the student's
heroic efforts to prove the professor and T.A. wrong in their
assessment of his term paper, Mr. Watson deserves an A+.''
(FYI, UT doesn't do plus or minus grades so, if the form is
approved, Watson's grade in the course will become an A.)
Waite, who was a lecturer at UT from 1981 to 1983, now
works on a Mission citrus farm that's been in her family
since 1922. Thanks to Watson's achievement, she proudly calls
herself ``a footnote to a footnote of history.''
But she says C was the proper course grade at the time
because she thought his theory about getting the
constitutional amendment ratified was far-fetched. ``I
thought it couldn't be done,'' she said. ``So he just
proceeded to prove me wrong.''
``Hey, a lowly lecturer has had more effect on the
Constitution than anybody in the professorial ranks,'' Waite
said with a laugh.
Elkins said he teaches about Watson's effort as an
inspiring example of ``heroic citizenship.''
``We just need the dean's signature, and it's done,''
Elkins said of the grade change effort.
If this gets rejected, nobody should ever wear burnt orange
again.
Largey remains understandably fascinated by Watson's story,
which he has told at Pop-Up Magazine events in San Francisco;
Washington; New York; Portland, Ore.; and Seattle.
``He is one of a kind,'' he said of Watson.
Largey's KUT story about Watson is scheduled to air at 6:45
and 8:45 a.m. Tuesday. You also should be able to find it at
KUT.org.
Happier ending upcoming, indeed. And you might have a
chance to make it even happier. Watson, 54, long has
struggled financially as he worked in the government world,
where jobs come and go.
Watson never graduated from college. He's been pretty much
a constant presence at the Texas Capitol since 1982, where
he's worked for 15 different lawmakers. He moved to Austin
City Hall in 2015 to work for then-Council Member Don
Zimmerman. When Zimmerman was defeated last year, Watson was
out of work. He's now an aide to Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort
Worth.
In addition to the government jobs, Watson has moonlighted
in retail and has bused tables at a downtown restaurant. His
current legislative job ends when the legislative session
ends in May. He needs a job after that. Maybe you know of
something.
I can tell you Watson knows his way around government and
got the U.S. Constitution amended.
And, assuming the change gets OK'd, he got an A in GOV 310.
One more thing: Yes, Watson still has his 1982 term paper--
somewhere.
``I have tried and tried and tried to find that thing,'' he
said. ``I don't know where I put it. It's not the type of
thing I would have thrown in the garbage. So it's somewhere.
And I'm one of these funny people that keeps everything, so
I've got storage unit after storage unit. It's somewhere in a
box in a storage unit.
``Hopefully, the termites haven't gotten to it.''
They wouldn't dare.
