Term Limits Case Study

May 22, 1995, in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton case the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications on future members of Congress stricter than what is stated in the Constitution. The case was brought to the Supreme Court when the state of Arkansas put an amendment into their state constitution that limited the number of terms any Federal Congressional and Senate candidate from Arkansas could serve. The Supreme Court ruled that “state-imposed term limits were an imperfect, and probably temporary, effort to reform a Congress whose members have become almost permanently ensconced on Capitol Hill” (Zubler 1995). Because term limits can limit the opportunity for someone to grow into their government position, limit citizen’s rights to select their own representatives, and eliminate any incentive representatives have to meet the needs of the public,
With citizens having the right to make their own decisions in life that includes having the right to pick and vote for their choice of any representatives in government. But if term limits were to make its way into the Constitution, they would infringe on American citizen’s rights and free will to select their choice of representatives in any office. According to the article Are Term Limits Undemocratic?, “term limits were undemocratic because they prevented voters from freely exercising their judgement to retain experienced representatives if voter wished” (Elhauge 1997). If term limits were required, the question that would be asked is why should voters be punished and deprived of their choices of representatives all because that person has already served the time allotted to government representatives. Many Americans often times vote for the same representatives in office, but if term limits were put in place then they would determine who could or could not run for office at any