Political Science 430 Constitutional Law U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) Facts Amendment 73 to Arkansas state constitution (1993) Incumbent senators limited to 2 terms and Congressmen to 3 terms Could be written in and elected after term limit has been reached Thornton?Rep. from Arkansas that would have been excluded from the ballot US Term Limits, Inc.?Organization that supported Amendment 73 Powell v. McCormack didn?t settle case before cert because Only said Congress could not set new requirements, did not mention states Questions Does the Constitution states from adding or altering the qualifications for membership Powell v. McCormack?qualifications set in stone w/o Constitutional Amendment 10th Amendment?any power not delegated to the US is reserved to the states or to the people Did not apply because the framers delegated requirements Many times rotation amendments had tried to pass and failed, thus it was established this was not part of the original Constitution States retained powers they had before Constitution Power did not exist in 1787 Access to ballot measure, not requirements Bound by the interpretation of the amendment made by the Arkansas SC cannot do indirectly, what you are prohibited from doing directly Arguments Amendment 73 violates Art. I of the Constitution that lays out the qualifications set for representatives?must not have previously served X number of terms US Term Limits?§4 of Art. I?states have right of how to hold elections?access of ballot manner Illustrations on board States pre-existing state powers (1787) Coin money Est. post offices and roads Tax Taken by people, thrown into Constitution and delegated to federal gov?t New power?to create new nat?l gov?t?people gave it to Constitution which delegated to federal gov?t Some powers went back to the states Electors and Time, Place and Manner of Elections 10th amendment?powers that existed in states in 1787 Flast v. Cohen (1968) Case on Standing Test?whether party sustains peculiarly loss or tangible personal injury Personal stake in the outcome of the controversy Forthinghamm v. Mellon (1923) Congress provided federal aid to states to fund programs to reduce infant mortality rate Frothinghamm?did not want her tax money spent on this program Case dismissed?no standing Must show nexus between tax dollar and dollar spent on program Fungible?cannot allege monetary damage because every tax dollar is the same?may not have spent hers but someone else?s Would have burdened courts if any taxpayer could file suit on any legislation Facts?taxpayers alleged that federal tax payer money being made available to private religious schools violated establishment cause of the 1st amendment New test for standing?C.J. Earl Warren Taxpayer must establish logical link between status as taxpayer and the type of legislative act attacked easy to qualify under this part?taxing and spending clause Taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged Next week Teusday?Gravel v. U.S., McCulloch v. Maryland, McCain v. Daugherty, Watkins v. U.S. Thursday?Barenblatt v. U.S.
Want to see the other 2 page(s) in 9-24-09.doc?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!