Term Limits V. Thornton

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

US Term Limits Inc had passed legislation in many states limiting the number of terms a senator or representative could be elected for. Arkansas passed Amendment 73 which limited the ability of those who had served 2 terms in the Senate or 3 terms in the House from having their name appear on the ballot –> imposing term limits

Arkansas supreme court struck down federal term limits

Arkansas constitutional initiative –> allows voters to collect signatures + put state constitutional amendments on ballot for people to vote

Question 2

Thornton Argument

Answer 2

Representative Ray Thornton as well as others argued that this law was in violation of the US Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional on the basis of Powell v McCormack, stating it established that the US Constitution establishes the sole qualifications for federal office and states may not alter them

Question 3

U.S. Term Limits Argument

Answer 3

The Amendment was constitutional because it did not restrict anyone from office. Instead it only restricts from having one’s name appear on the ballot, allowing for the provision of election through write-in. It was also Constitutional on the basis of the states’ power to regulate the Times, Places, and Manner of Holding Elections

Question 4

Issue at hand?

Answer 4

Can a state alter criteria for Congressional elections that was specifically stated in the const?

1. Do the states (pursuant to the 10th Amendment) have the authority to augment the Qualifications Clause of Article I?
2. If not, do the states have the authority to impose term limits via the Time, Places, and Manner Clause of Article I?
3. Is the Arkansas term limit amendment a valid exercise of the elections clause?

Question 5

Opinion of the Court Delivered By

Answer 5

Justice Stevens

Question 6

Opinion of the Court

Answer 6

First, the Court upheld the Arkansas Supreme Court based on the Supremacy Clause. The Tenth Amendment (Reservation Clause) was not applicable because the states cannot reserve a right they never had in the first place.

Question 7

Dissent is delivered by…

Answer 7

Justice Thomas

Question 8

Dissenting Opinon

Answer 8

The Amendment was constitutional because it Article I of the Constitution only sets the minimum requirements for office, and states may add to these qualification as they see fit based on the Reservation Clause. A power need not be previously held in order to be reserved presently.

Question 9

Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution

Arkansas Term Limit Amendment (3)

Answer 9

• done to ensure importance on constituents, not on reelection
• limit on both House and Senate terms
• Only limited their name from appearing on the ballot, their name could still be written in and they can still run for office

Question 10

U.S. Term Limits, Inc.’s Argument: (2)

Answer 10

• 10th Amendment

- Times, Places, and Manner Clause of Article I

Question 11

10th Amendment: (3)

Answer 11

• Powers Reserved to the States
• Any power states possessed prior to the Ratification of 1788.
• Anything not explicitly denying the states or given to any branch of the federal government shall be reserved to the states.

Question 12

Time, Places, and Manner Clause of Article I

Answer 12

decides when, where, and how congressional elections are held = prescribed in each state by the legislature. Congress may at any time a law altering the process.

• the way in which we hold elections = up to states but congress can change this

Question 13

SCOTUS HELD, WHY

Answer 13

• 5-4—> Thornton
• Powell v. McCormack est. that allowing states to adopt their own qualifications for Congressional service is not allowed.
• McCulloch v. Maryland est. that “No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed.
• 10th Amdt does not grant the power to add qualifications
• Arkansas amendment is not a good faith exercise of its power under the elections clause

Question 14

Significance

Answer 14

Upheld Supremacy Clause. Settled that no one could alter or add to the qualifications of federal office enumerated by the Constitution.

Question 15

Structuralism + Stevens

Answer 15

• states adopting their own qualifications. = inconsistent with framers’ visions of uniform legislation representing all
• by manipulating legislatures you manipulate what they can do = sets precedent for limits + qualifications

Question 16

Originalism + Stevens

Answer 16

• federalist papers = evidence of framers intent that states = no role in setting qualifications (Fed no. 52 -> states flexibility in determining who could vote = used power to bar people
• federalist papers = persuasive essays trying to convince states to ratify the constitution

Question 17

Strict Construction + Stevens

Answer 17

= only things consultation says ,matter = if we wanted to allow states to add qualifications framers would have left it wide open in constitution like they did in regards to voting

Question 18

Plain meaning textualism + Stevens

Answer 18

• consitution specifies 3 types of qualifications = age, citizenship + state residency = assume those are the only types of qualifications

Question 19

Dissent (Thomas) + structrualism

Answer 19

• possibility that constitution does not require uniformity across the board -> States power over things the constitution does not force them to give up
• if constitution does not prohibit states from doing something its not something fed gov can do -> states can do it

Question 20

originalism + thomas

Answer 20

• at time of framing we states did not have a way of determining if someone = us citizen
• citizenship was unique state by state
• idea of uniformity = not real = certain people excluded from citizenship because of slavery
• additional qualifications added by states -> to no ones complaints

Question 21

plain meaning textualism + thomas

Answer 21

• consitution = silent on this ? -> raises no bar to action by states or the people