Unit 1 SCOTUS Practice Before the Quiz (B) McCulloch v. Thornton

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

The national government challenged that the states cannot alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the national government saying that the Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. In the decision, John Paul Stevens wrote that a state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"

Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.

Explain how the facts of McCulloch v. Maryland and the facts of United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton led to a similar holding in both cases.

Describe an action a state Arkansas legislator could take if he or she was dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court.