The Supreme Court, in
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to amend their constitutions in order to impose term limits on their residents elected to federal office.
The primary question in
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) pertained to the states’ power to extend the qualifications for US Congress as described in Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Do states, via their 10th Amendment reserved powers, retain the right to alter the qualifications for U.S. Congressional representatives their states send to Washington? Can they do so by indirect means, such as ballot access restrictions? The Court answered "no"’ to both questions. It held that states, acting individually, may not alter the constitutional qualifications for federal office, nor may they do so by indirect means. Any alteration must be by federal constitutional amendment. With that decision, the Court ended congressional term limitations adopted by nearly half of the states, and in the process reexamined the nature of Congress as the national legislature, the federal union, and the priority of the states in determining the qualifications of its members. The Court's rationale was as follows:
- Article I's qualifications for Congress are exclusive and cannot be extended by Congress. I
- Given Storer v. Brown (1974), the elections clause -- the Article I, Section 4 delegation to the states to specify the manner of holding elections—gives the states authority to regulate the procedures for executing an election but not to alter the qualifications for office.
The Court’s opinion affirmed the concept of Congress as a uniform national legislature representing the citizenry. In so doing, it also affirmed the uniformity of the qualifications of Congressional membership and how those qualifications are set. The implications of the Court’s opinion touch not only federalism but legislative representation in the U.S. federal system. "
The fundamental principle of our representative democracy is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,’’ and that this right belongs not to the states but to them.
GOP Contract with America:
In the same year that the Court heard
Term Limits,
the Republican Party proposed in its ten-point "Contract with America," that included a promise to propose a constitutional amendment establishing federal term limitations, but the effort failed.
Interestingly and unlike Trump's Contract with the American People, the ten items in the 1994 Contract were
all acted upon in the first 100 days of the new Congress, which is what the signatories had pledged.
Aside:
The first element of the 1994 Contract sits in stark contrast to the current fiscal philosophy and legislation the GOP endorse:
THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT:
A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
