In 2016, before Trump was elected president, he expressed his hope to limit the terms of congressional members. In 2018, after becoming president, Trump reiterated that he wanted to 'drain the swamp' and limit congressional members' terms to a maximum of two terms (12 years) for senators and a maximum of six terms (12 years) for representatives.
This year, Trump was elected again. After several senators in the Senate indicated they would refuse Trump's previous nominee for Attorney General, Gaetz, I saw many people saying that Trump would vigorously promote efforts to limit the terms of congressional members during this term. Trump certainly wants to do this, especially wanting to limit the terms of senators. But the question is: how difficult is it?
Limiting the terms of congressional members is not a new thing. The last peak period was around the 1990s. At that time, there was a vigorous movement across the United States to limit the terms of congressional members, gaining significant momentum and making substantial progress in 23 states, but it soon fizzled out and was not mentioned for a long time afterward. Congressional members, whether senators or representatives, are elected by each state and represent the interests of their respective states in Congress. On November 3, 1992, in the elections, voters in Arkansas passed a constitutional amendment, the 73rd Amendment, through a referendum. This amendment is relatively long, and I will only discuss the key points.
The gist of Section 3(a) of the 73rd Amendment is that once anyone is elected as a congressional representative in Arkansas for three terms or more, he or she can no longer be certified as a candidate for representative, and his or her name cannot be placed on the ballot for congressional representatives in Arkansas.
The gist of Section 3(b) of the 73rd Amendment is that once anyone is elected as a congressional senator in Arkansas for two terms or more, he or she can no longer be certified as a candidate for senator, and his or her name cannot be placed on the ballot for congressional senators in Arkansas. This clause is written in a convoluted manner, but it is also unavoidable. If the intention is to limit the terms of legislators, then it could simply state: No one shall be elected as a senator (or representative) more than twice (or three times). Wouldn't that be better? Why is the Arkansas constitutional amendment written so awkwardly? This is because Arkansas is not confident; they think the courts may not agree.
So, their amendment only stipulates that after someone is elected more than twice, that person cannot be certified as a candidate, and that person's name cannot be printed on the ballot (because once certified, the name will be printed on the ballot), but it does not prohibit that person from running again. Although that person's name is not printed on the ballot, voters can manually write that person's name on the ballot, which is also valid. This method is called 'write-in'. In 2010, Alaska Senator Murkowski was re-elected through a 'write-in' method, shocking the entire nation.
Arkansas wants to tell everyone through this method: we are not directly imposing term limits on congressional members; we are just not allowing their names to be printed on the ballot! However, voters can still write the names of candidates who have been elected multiple times on the ballot when voting! This is also valid! But the problem is that being elected through the write-in method is very, very difficult. Then, Arkansas still felt insecure, so they wrote in Section 4 of the 73rd Amendment: the provisions of this amendment are severable, and if any provision is deemed invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected! Because Arkansas anticipated when drafting this amendment that the court would likely overturn Section 3 of this amendment! As expected, this amendment was immediately challenged in court after it was passed.
Both the Arkansas Circuit Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found that Section 3 of the 73rd Amendment violates the federal constitution. The court ruled that no term limits can be imposed on congressional members outside of the Constitution, only the Constitution itself can do so! Since the Constitution does not limit the terms of congressional members, no restrictions on congressional terms can be imposed in any way. Although Arkansas does not directly limit the terms of congressional members, it effectively restricts the terms of congressional members!
Then the lawsuit went to the federal Supreme Court, which is the case 'U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton'. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. is a non-profit organization whose goal is to limit congressional members' terms. In this case, the federal Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Arkansas's amendment violates the federal constitution and is invalid!
Justices Stevens (nominated by Republican President Ford), Kennedy (nominated by Republican President Reagan), Souter (nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush), Ginsburg (nominated by Democratic President Clinton), and Breyer (nominated by Democratic President Clinton) form the majority. Justices Thomas (nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush), Quillen (nominated by Republican President Reagan), O'Connor (nominated by Republican President Reagan), and Scalia (nominated by Republican President Reagan) form the minority. Notice that at that time, there were 7 justices nominated by Republican presidents and only 2 justices nominated by Democratic presidents on the Supreme Court. Among the 7 justices nominated by Republican presidents, 4 believed that states could impose term limits on congressional members elected from their state. The opinion of the majority justices is the opinion of the Supreme Court. In addition to believing that states have no right to impose restrictions on congressional members, the Supreme Court believes that if this precedent is set, then each state will have its own various regulations, ultimately confusing Congress.
The minority opinion led by Justice Thomas angrily criticized the majority's decision, stating it is very ironic. He believes the Constitution does not prohibit states and people from imposing non-constitutional restrictions and conditions on congressional members, so states have the right to do so.
Additionally, Justice Thomas mentioned that Arkansas's amendment does not directly impose term limits but only prevents the names of repeatedly elected members from appearing on the ballot. Is even this not allowed? In any case, the opinion of the majority justices is the court's ruling. Once the ruling was made, laws in 23 states imposing restrictions on congressional members became invalid. Therefore, if Trump wants to promote restrictions on congressional members, then the Supreme Court's ruling in 1995 is a significant obstacle.
The 1995 ruling states clearly: states cannot impose restrictions on congressional members. Therefore, states have no operational space. Even if the Supreme Court wanted to overturn its previous ruling, it would not have the opportunity to do so. Because if states now pass laws imposing restrictions on congressional members, there is no doubt that this law is clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, it is also difficult for states to formulate new laws to limit congressional members, and since it is difficult to impose new restrictions, there will be no new cases, making it hard for the Supreme Court to overturn previous rulings.
Therefore, Trump's path is left with only one option, which is to limit congressional members' terms through a constitutional amendment. Because to limit the terms of congressional members, there must be support from more than two-thirds of senators, more than two-thirds of representatives, and more than three-quarters of states. Thus, this amendment is difficult to pass in Congress, as legislators are unlikely to agree to limit their own terms, especially those senior legislators, particularly those from deep red and deep blue districts. The two-thirds threshold is basically impossible to reach. But I believe this is a very difficult task, and currently, it only has theoretical possibilities.#BabyMarvinf9c7您拥有您值得 