|
United States Supreme Court
During the 1980s resentment grew against what many people considered a professional Congress. Most
congressional incumbents were re-elected each election. They attracted the most special-interest money,
received free television and radio coverage, and had such built-in advantages that it seemed unlikely
that a great turnover of members would ever be possible. While popular slogans on bumper stickers [such
as "Diapers and Politicians should be changed regularly"] expressed popular feelings, some Americans
were seriously worried that a "professional" Congress was not responding to the wishes of the
people. Part of this movement was sponsored, prompted and funded by Republicans and their special-interest
supporters, who were becoming desperate to gain control of Congress.
The idea of setting term limits was one possible solution. Some candidates—usually Republican challengers
and other leaders as the idea became popular—pledged self-imposed limits. They vowed to step down after
three to five terms [6–10 years] and let other citizens replace them. Through referendums and legislation,
some states began mandating term limits, limiting U.S. Representatives to 10 years in office and Senators
to 12 years. Many involved parties objected, suggesting this just a ploy by Republicans to achieve through
extralegal methods what they couldn’t win at the ballot box. Others objected to these limits as interfering
with the democratic process. If the voters wanted their congressmen out, they could replace them at the
ballot box. Some political scientists warned of dire consequences if all the senior statesmen were removed
at once. Nevertheless, the laws went into effect.
The success of these laws was limited. Once Republicans captured control of Congress in 1994, most forgot
or backed out on their pledges to either step down or pass national term-limits legislation. Once they
were the majority, having a permanent, professional Republican Congress didn’t seem so bad. The state
laws were quickly challenged in court as unconstitutional. Most were thrown out by the federal courts
at all levels, but a few cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, as did U.S. Term Limits, Inc.
v. Ray Thornton. As you work your way through Justice Stevens’s opinion, consider the following:
What arguments do the supporters of term limits make to support their plans, and, especially, why do they
claim the Arkansas law is constitutional where earlier term-limit measures were not? The Supreme Court
does not agree with these arguments. Note how the Court relies on the historical record, existing state
practice, and basic democratic principles to overturn the Arkansas law.
|
