[19950531]95-646_州议会任期限制的违宪性：美国期限限制公司诉桑顿案概述（补充Ct文件编号：编号93-1456）.pdf

Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 95-646 AUpdated May 31, 1995The Unconstitutionality of StateCongressional Term Limits: An Overview ofU.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (Sup. Ct.Doc. No. 93-1456)Thomas M. DurbinLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryOn May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton(Sup. Ct. Doc. No. 93-1456) in a 5-4 decision held that Arkansas constitutionalamendment, Section 3 of Amendment 73, providing for limitations on congressionalterms of office was unconstitutional in that it established an additional qualification forcongressional office in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 setting forth the three basicqualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy for Members of Congress. The Courtaffirmed the 1994 decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court which had ruled thatAmendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution limiting the terms of Members of Congresswas unconstitutional in violation of the Qualifications Clauses of Article I because stateterm limits imposed an impermissible additional qualification on congressional candidates(See the Arka