🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.121745.21162@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
|> In article <WCS.92Nov4184054@rainier.ATT.COM>, wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
|> > There's been one Amendment since then, restricting Congress's ability
|> > to raise its own pay.  Originally proposed in the early 1800s,
|> > and not having a time limit for its adoption, it was finally approved
|> > by 3/4 of the states a few months ago.
|> 
|> Yes, and I think it's going to make for an interesting Supreme Court case.
|> I seem to recall an earlier court ruling that ratifications be ``substantially
|> contemporaneous'', which sure doesn't apply here.  And a lawsuit has been
|> filed under that amendment, charging that a recent Congressional pay
|> raise violates it.

Am I missing something here?  Didn't we just have an election?

/Ed Symanzik