What Is Section 3 Of Amendment 73 Violate The Qualification Clause Of Article I?

494 Words2 Pages

Arkansas amended their state constitution in 1992 to impose term limits on their legislators. Amendment 73, Section 3 prohibited people who served in the House of Representatives for three or more terms and people who served in the Senate for two or more terms from appearing on the ballot for reelection. Ray Thornton, a six-term House representative, challenged the amendment against U.S. Term Limits, Inc., a national advocacy group. The Arkansas State Supreme Court held Section 3 of Amendment 73 violated Article I of the Constitution. U.S. Term Limits Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue Did Section 3 of Amendment 73 violate the Qualification Clause of Article I? Rule Article I, Section 5 declares Congress judges the qualifications …show more content…

If states could create their own qualifications for members of Congress, it would conflict with the Framer’s vision of a uniform national legislature. Powell was used as precedent because the Court decided qualifications other than those in the Constitution could not be imposed on members of Congress under Article I, Section 5, the Qualifications Clause. The petitioner, U.S. Term Limits, Inc., argued the Constitution did not prohibit adding qualifications to legislators, and therefore, the power was granted to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The Court disagreed, stating the power to add qualifications was not included in the original powers of the states, so it could not be given to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The Court also argued the Qualifications Clause includes specific qualifications in order to prevent states from adding new qualifications. The 17th Amendment granted the people the right to choose their representatives. Restrictions imposed by the states would conflict with the 17th Amendment right of the people to choose their legislators. U.S. Term Limits Inc. also argued the states had the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections under Article I, Section 4, making Amendment 73 constitutional. The Court rejected this argument, stating Section 3 of the amendment was only an attempt to create new qualifications for members of Congress and was not a direct attempt to regulate the time, place, or manner of holding

Open Document