Last Name 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course Number

Date

Judicial Branch Argumentation Paper on U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

The thing about having a federalist government is a balance between the interests of the

states and the government must be established. As such the existence of a permissibility of such

states to establish and enforce their statutes, in such a way which does not overrule and

compromise the federal constitution, which is to say, the American Constitution. In the case of

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), such as the issue presented to the court. The constitution of

the state of Arkansas had added Amendment 73 which did not allow ballot access to any

candidate of the federal congress who has already served in the United State House of

Representatives for three terms, and two in the United States Senate. Such a restriction was not

mandated in the federal constitution, and was hence, adding more restrictions to political and

electorate participation to what the Constitution has already established. The decision of the

Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) that states do not have the ability “to

adopt their own qualifications for congressional service” (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton, 514

U.S. 779 (1995), n.p.), being that it is a violation of the constitutional mandates. The Supreme

Court’s decision on the case is an exercise of judicial restraint and is not a form of judicial

activism— mainly because it is a decision is an answer to a justiciable controversy presented to

them, by which through they upheld constitutional provisions without intent to prejudice or

compromise the states or any other of the government branches.

 Last Name 2

The Supreme Court decision was a practice of judicial restraint because the Court was

acting within their constitutional mandate. The Judiciary is given the authority by the

Constitution, particularly in Section 2, Article III, to resolve controversies between the following

parties: states, foreign states, citizens, groups of citizens, or subjects (Article III: Judicial Branch

n.p.). The case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was between citizens of Arkansas: the

individuals that comprised the U.S. Term Limits team and Attorney Ray Thornton. Having been

presented with a justiciable controversy regarding the electoral process, particularly concerning

term limits, the Supreme Court by their constitutional mandate had to decide on the case by what

the federal constitution upheld. It is to be pointed out, that while each state has its capacity and

authority to legislate, these laws must still abide by the federal constitution.

Secondly, the Supreme Court decision was a practice of judicial restraint because they

only acted upon their duty to judge regarding controversies. Alexander Hamilton in his essay

Federalist Papers No. 78 that by nature the Judiciary is the “least dangerous” as it has the least

“capacity to annoy or injure” for the primary duty of the Judiciary is “merely [for] judgment”

(Hamilton 1). As such, the decision cannot be deemed as judicial activism for the decision does

not invalidate the actions of the officials of Arkansas, but is merely stating a judgment that the

term limits established through Amendment 73 is not consistent with the American Constitution,

and is hence, unconstitutional. Ultimately, as Hamilton pointed out, the enforcement of the

judgment would “depend upon the aid of the executive arm” (1). This is to say that the Court has

only the capacity to carry out judgments over the controversies brought before them, as

evidenced in this case.

Moreover, the Supreme Court decision was a practice of judicial restraint being that the

Court acted in independence from the states, and acknowledgment that their authority comes
 Last Name 3

from the federal government. The Judiciary is “totally independent of the states,” and their power

and duties are “derive[ed …] from the United States” (Brutus No. 1, n.p.). The decision of the

Supreme Court to uphold the federal constitution is both an act which stresses their independence

from the Supreme Court of Arkansas and the State of Arkansas, and an act which emphasizes

that their authority is from the federal constitution. As such, they are mandated by the federal

constitution to decide upon the case by the provisions regarding term limits already established

in the Constitution. The decision was not established to prejudice the State of Arkansas. Instead,

it was decided upon by the precepts of the Constitution.

There would be others which would deem that this decision was, in fact, a practice of

judicial activism, being that it had invalidated a legislative move of the state. However, the case

is not as such; by looking into the definitions of what construes a practice relating to judicial

restraint or of judicial activism, it is evident that the Supreme Court’s decision was indeed an act

of the former rather than the latter. Judicial restraint refers to “the exercise of judicial review”

which are deemed “necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties”

(Kermit, Judicial Restraint n.p.). On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a judicial decision

“in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to

invalidate legislative or executive actions” (Kermit, Judicial Activism n.p.). By such definitions,

it can be seen that what the Supreme Court had done in the act of deciding the case in the

discussion is not a judgment bore out of the willingness of the judge to decide on the matter, but

instead the decision was made out of the necessity to resolve the dispute of the matter.
 Last Name 4

Works Cited

“Article III: Judicial Branch.” Constitution Center, n.d. Retrieved from

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-iii#section-2

“Brutus No. 1.” Khan Academy, 2018. Retrieved from

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-

of-american-democracy/government-power-and-individual-rights/a/brutus-no-1

“U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).” Justia.com. Contributed by Chris

Skelton, n.d. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/

Alexander, Hamilton. “The Federalist No. 78.” Retrieved from

http://piedmont.k12.ca.us/phs/faculty/mcowherd/files/2013/09/Federalist-antifederalist-

78.pdf

Roosevelt, Kermit. “Judicial Activism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism

Roosevelt, Kermit. “Judicial Restraint.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-restraint