```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5684-H5685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I would like to comment today 
about the Supreme Court decision limiting the powers of the States to 
prohibit those States from enacting term limits.
  Madam Speaker, the majority opinion in U.S. Term Limits versus 
Thornton, as Justice Thomas points out in dissent, reflects a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th amendment's reservation of 
powers to State governments and the people. While the 5 to 4 decision 
may be a setback for term limits, it is only a temporary one. The 
closeness of the vote, and the strength of the dissent's argument, 
means that less harm was done to the term limit movement than is 
generally believed.
  The fundamental issue in Thorton is not term limits, but the power of 
States and citizens to add to the three qualifications that are spelled 
out in article I for Members of Congress: age, citizenry, and 
residence. While the majority makes a cogent and correct argument that 
the Constitution bars Congress from setting additional qualifications, 
it fails to demonstrate that the States are barred from adding 
qualifications. The thrust of the majority's argument is that allowing 
States to set additional qualifications could lead to abuses of the 
electoral process. The majority said the Founders would have opposed 
such abuses, and therefore must have meant to bar the states 
[[Page H5685]] from adding qualifications. But the fact, as the dissent 
points out, is that the Constitution is silent on the matter. And the 
10th amendment could not be more clear: ``The powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' 
The plain language of the Constitution says that unless the 
Constitution prohibits states from adding qualifications about who can 
represent them in Congress, they should have the ability to do so. 
Whether a particular qualification, such as not having served more than 
three terms in the U.S. House, is a good idea or not is irrelevant.
  If one accepts the majority opinion, then all other state 
qualifications are unconstitutional. These would include requirements 
that Congressman must live in the district that they represent, or that 
they not be a convicted murderer. Justice Thomas points out the 
absurdity of the situation where states have the right to restrict 
those who can vote in an election, but not the right to say who can run 
when he says: ``the people of each state must leave open the 
possibility that they will trust someone with their vote in Congress 
even though they do not trust him with a vote in the election for 
Congress.''
  Actually, the Arkansas law would allow Congressmen to serve more than 
three terms, it just would require them to be a write-in candidate. The 
majority ruling was that this disadvantages a class of candidates, and 
holds that an amendment with the purpose of handicapping a class of 
candidates is in violation of the Qualifications Clauses and cannot 
stand. As the dissent again points out, this would mean that one could 
argue that the current congressional campaign finance system 
disadvantages challengers, and thus is unconstitutional. The same 
arguments could be raised against any redistricting plans of the 
various states.
  It has not been well-reported that the implications of the majority 
opinion
 could go well beyond term limits. As other related issues come before 
a future Supreme Court, it is possible that the U.S. Term Limits versus 
Thornton decision will be overturned. Of course, this would be well 
into the future. An interesting question is, where do we go from here?

  I am committed to term limits, and have directed the House Clerk to 
take my name off the congressional roll after six terms. I believe a 
majority of Americans now realize that our government is going to be 
better led by a citizen legislature than by career politicians. The 
court decision means that neither Congress nor the States can impose 
term limits by statute. Unless the decision is overturned, there must 
be a constitutional amendment to allow for term limits. While term 
limits supporters are often divided on the exact constitutional 
language for term limits, I expect them to agree on a form which will 
be able to gather the necessary two-thirds vote. Despite having a 
majority in the House in favor of term limits, the vote was 61 short of 
passing a constitutional amendment in March. Should the people continue 
to pressure the Congress a constitutional amendment will be enacted.
  Another option is the use of Article 5 to call for a constitutional 
convention. While it is true that all 27 constitutional amendments have 
come through the Congress, mounting a drive for a convention would add 
to the pressure on Congress to pass a term limit amendment and would 
keep the movement on the front burner in each of the States.
  I believe strongly that the citizens of each of our 50 States have 
the right to choose how to govern themselves. The people of any State 
should be able to enact and enforce qualifications for their 
representatives. Term limits address the broader issue of limiting the 
growth of our leviathan government. As George Mason said during the 
general debate on the ratifying of the constitution in 1778: ``Nothing 
so strongly impels a man to regard the interests of his constituents as 
the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people from 
whence he was taken.'' Congress must not become a perpetual body. It 
must be made up of citizen legislators who, in the words of Thomas 
Jefferson, ``might have in idea that they were at a certain period to 
return into the mass of people and become the governed instead of the 
governors.'' Term limits will accomplish this and States deserve to 
have their 10th amendment rights be recognized.

                          ____________________
```