Edwards: Unrealistic and unconstitutional

Via Christina Bellantoni, John Edwards has released an ad in Iowa that makes the misleading claim that he can take away health care from members of Congress:

The Clinton campaign's Fact Hub blog has posted a response citing my post on Edwards's proposal as well as one by Matthew Yglesias:

Sen. Edwards has a new TV advertisement about health care where he proposes the following law:

When I’m president, I’m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration including my cabinet, I’m glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don’t pass universal health care by July 2009, in six months, I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.

The problem is, Sen. Edwards doesn't have the power to take health care away from Congress unilaterally—he'd have to propose a law. (Sen. Edwards himself has acknowledged this point.) And a law that takes away health coverage from Congress in July 2009 is unconstitutional according to the 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.

Thus, since the law would change compensation for Congress before the next Congressional election (2010), it would violate the 27th amendment. The Atlantic's Matt Yglesias and All The President's Spin author Brendan Nyhan agree.

I love how I'm cited as if I'm some sort of constitutional law expert. But I'm pretty confident I'm right that the law would be invalidated. And even if I'm wrong, do you think Congress will vote to drop its own health care?

Comments

[Sean-B]

Again, it's not literal. Edwards:

"I’m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration including my cabinet..."

He's going to say it. He's going to draw attention to it. He can't really do it. So what?

[Rob]

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I am a lawyer, and I've taught constitutional law from time to time. I acknowledge that the meaning of the 27th Amendment remains to be litigated, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet against health benefits being considered part of a Congressman's compensation.

There are numerous employment benefits that change from time to time, including parking, office allowances, gym use, the Capitol framing shop, and no doubt the specifics of the Congressional health care plan. But none of these benefits is considered taxable compensation to the member of Congress, and I expect none of them would be considered "compensation" within the meaning of the 27th Amendment.