What Michigan's Constitution actually provides is that pension benefits "shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby".
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office".
That clause provides: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts... shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office".
This was the Court's year 1920 interpretation of the "Compensation Clause", the rule that Federal judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" under Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Some legal experts say the plan would violate the Illinois Constitution, which says pension benefits "shall not be diminished or impaired".
In Illinois, where the pension underfunding is among the most egregious, the state constitution says that "benefits shall not be diminished".
That clause, inserted by the framers to protect judicial independence, provides that the compensation of life-tenured federal judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office".
His plan is being fought vigorously by unions that point out that pensions are protected by Michigan's Constitution, which calls them a contractual obligation that "shall not be diminished or impaired".
The appeals court held that the lawmakers had not violated the provision in Article III of the Constitution that guarantees to federal judges "a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office".
Taxes and Judges In a rare interpretation of the Constitution's Compensation Clause, which provides that the compensation of federal judges "shall not be diminished," the court ruled today that Congress's extension of the Medicare tax to federal judges in 1982 was constitutional but that the imposition of the Social Security tax in 1984 was not.
