U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Significance, Arkansas Rejects Career Politicians, The Qualifications Clause And Other Prohibitions, Dissent: An Ironic Ruling

petitioner amendment winston decision

Petitioner

U.S. Term Limits, Inc.

Respondents

Ray Thornton, Winston Bryant, Bobbie Hill

Petitioner's Claim

That Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which limited the terms of officials elected to office in the legislative branch of the federal government, does not violate the Qualifications Clause or any other part of the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Lawyers for Petitioner

George O. Jernigan, Jr., Richard F. Hatfield, Winston Bryant

Chief Lawyers for Respondents

Doyle L. Webb, Stephen Engstrom, Elizabeth J. Robben, Sherry P. Bartley

Justices for the Court

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court)

Justices Dissenting

Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

22 May 1995

Decision

That the "Term Limits Amendment" would erode the structure designed by the framers to form a `more perfect Union"; accordingly, the amendment was judged unconstitutional.

Related Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972).
FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982).
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Additional Topics

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Arkansas Rejects Career Politicians

The 1980s and 1990s saw a surge of enthusiasm for term limits. Around the country, citizens became aware of the fact that certain senators and representatives seemed to have become permanent fixtures Washington, D.C. With each year of "serving" their states or districts, these politicians gained more power and more influence, enjoyed greater advantages, and drifted further from the needs of their …

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - The Qualifications Clause And Other Prohibitions

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consolidate several related cases. Upon review it voted 5-4 to affirm the ruling of the lower court. Justice Stevens, for the majority, wrote that section 3 of Amendment 73, the part pertaining to senators and representatives, did indeed violate the Constitution. Though Article I, section 5, clause 1 gave each House of Congress power to judge the "Qualifications of…

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Dissent: An Ironic Ruling

Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia, dissented. "It is ironic," he began, "that the Court bases today's decision on the right of the people `to choose whom they please to govern them'" when its ruling indicated that neither the people of Arkansas nor their legislature had a right to make such a choice. "Nothing in the Constitution,"…

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Impact

Just as the Court's decision in Thornton was split more or less between the liberals who opposed term limits and the conservatives who supported them, the reaction in political journals was on similar lines. Jeffrey Rosen in the liberal New Republic, writing before the Court reviewed the case, suggested that "The justices will be on solid ground if they strike down term limits on the theory that n…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.