U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON
514 U.S. 779 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal of a decision by the Arkansas supreme court to the
effect that a state constitutional amendment violates the federal Constitution.
FACTS: In a 1992 general election the voters of Arkansas adopted Amendment 73 to their
State Constitution. Proposed as a 'Term Limitation Amendment,' its preamble stated: 'The
people of Arkansas find and declare that elected officials who remain in office too long
become preoccupied with reelection and ignore their duties as representatives of the people.
Entrenched incumbency has reduced voter participation and has led to an electoral system
that is less free, less competitive, and less representative than the system established by
the Founding Fathers. Therefore, the people of Arkansas, exercising their reserved powers,
herein limit the terms of the elected officials.' The Amendment prohibits the name of an
otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if
that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms
in the Senate. Hill (P) filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that 3 of
Amendment 73 is 'unconstitutional and void.' On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
Circuit Court held that 3 of Amendment 73 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The State of Arkansas, by its Attorney General, and the
intervenors (D) petitioned for writs of certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment