United States Term Limits v. Thornton
United States Term Limits v. Thornton is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1995, which addressed the issue of state-imposed term limits for members of Congress. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, ruled that such limits were unconstitutional, asserting that they effectively altered the qualifications for federal office as outlined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the majority opinion, argued that allowing individual states to establish their own qualifications could undermine the uniform structure intended by the framers of the Constitution. The decision emphasized that any changes to congressional qualifications would require a constitutional amendment rather than state legislation. Dissenting justices raised concerns about states' rights and noted the absence of explicit constitutional language addressing term limits. This landmark ruling has important implications for how states can interact with federal election processes and the principles of federalism in the United States. The case continues to resonate in discussions about governance and electoral reform.
United States Term Limits v. Thornton
Date: May 22, 1995
Citation: 514 U.S. 779
Issue: Qualifications for Congress
Significance: The Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Arkansas constitution that imposed term limits for members of both houses of Congress.
By 1995 Arkansas and twenty-two other states had adopted limits on the terms of office for members of Congress. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that such limits were unconstitutional. In his sixty-one-page opinion for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens observed that term limits were qualifications and that neither states nor Congress was authorized to add to the qualifications for representatives found in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Allowing individual states to craft their own qualifications would “erode the structure envisioned by the framers.” Therefore, a constitutional amendment was the only acceptable way to obtain the desired limits. The dissenters emphasized two points: states’ rights and silence in the Constitution concerning the issue.
