Description
The U.S. case “Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton”[1] is an interesting case because at first glance, one would accept that a state’s attempt to impose limits is obviously an infringement of the United States Constitution. This is due to the fact that the United States Constitution is the governing document which defines the laws that govern the Federal Government. Due to the United States House of Representatives and Unites States Senate both being governing bodies of the Federal Government, they would both fall under the purview of the United States Constitution. Further, the United States Constitution lists specific methods for altering the Constitution and this ability is reserved for the United States legislature.[2] Additionally, Art I, 2 cl 2 specifically states the requirements for one to hold office in the House of Representatives[3] while Art 1, 3, cl 3 specifically states the requirements for on to hold office in the United States Senate[4]. It is important to note that neither of the aforementioned articles list term limits for the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.
In the case “Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton,” the majority determined that the amendment to the Arkansas state constitution was in violation of the United States Constitution.[5] At first glance, and based on previous facts, this decision seems to be the logical decision. In fact, one may have difficulty in developing a dissenting opinion. However, upon further review of the case, “Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, and a review of the United States Constitution, one may arrive at an alternative opinion.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, in part, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states.”[6] Given that the Constitution lists the requirements for one to serve within the United States Legislation,[7] but does not list term restrictions,[8] one could conclude that the writers of the Constitution did not wish to impose wide-spread restrictions, and thereby leaving such decisions to the state.
The ability for a state to impose term limits, through a ballot initiative, is also supported under the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution clarifies that just because certain rights are not specifically granted to the people, those rights are not denied.[9] When considering the fact that the Constitution does not specifically deny the ability of the states, or people, to set term limits for their specific legislators, one can argue that this right is reserved to the people. The act of initiating a ballot measure for a state constitutional amendment falls under the purview of the Ninth Amendment, since the Constitution does not specifically limit the people to initiate ballot initiatives.
Further, when one considers the fact that the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment provide for non-specific rights to be reserved to the state or people, one should conclude that the proposed amendment to the Arkansas constitution does not violate the United States Constitution due to the fact that this state constitutional amendment does not change the Constitution, nor does it attempt to alter the requirements for serving in the United States Legislation set forth in the Constitution.
One may argue that the framers of the Constitution did not include term limits in the Constitution because they did not want term limits. However, the Constitution does allow for specific ways for the Constitution to be changed, despite the beliefs held by the founders. As previously discussed, the power to change the constitution is reserved for the United States Legislator.[10] The passing of a state constitutional amendment would not preclude the United States Legislature from passing a subsequent Constitutional Amendment addressing the issue of term limits. In this case, should the ratification of a subsequent Constitutional Amendment occur, any conflicting state constitutional amendments would be in violation.
Explanation & Answer
Final file
1
Running head: WORD RESPONSE
WORD RESPONSE
NAME
INSTITUTION AFFILIATION
DATE
2
WORD RESPONSE
WORD RESPONSE
The U.S. case "Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton" means an intriguing case because, at first
look, one would acknowledge that a state's endeavor as far as possible is clearly an encroachment
of the Assembled States Constitution. Because of the Assemble...
Review
Review
