Opinion ID: 1452513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the provisions of article 5 of the u.s. constitution and their meaning under extant u.s. supreme court jurisprudence

Text: The proponents' obvious objective is to initiate the process that would bring about a national constitutional convention for the purpose of submitting to the states an amendment to the federal constitution whose provisions would impose congressional office term limits. By the initiative in contest state legislators are instructed to advance the proponents' cause by an application calling upon the Congress to convene a national constitutional convention. Should a state lawmaker fail to do as instructed, the words FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS shall be placed next to his name on ballots to be used in future elections. Article 5, U.S. Const., provides that constitutional amendments may be proposed only by the vote of two thirds of both Houses of Congress or by application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states. [2] This process secures deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. [3] Recent federal constitutional jurisprudence, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , [4] declares that the legislatures of the United States and of the fifty states (and territories) are themselves powerless to place a limit on the term of office held (or to be held) by members of the Congress. The only legally effective method for imposing a limit on the terms of a congressional officeholder is through the Art. 5 amendment procedures. Early federal constitutional jurisprudence teaches that the electorate's reserved power of the state initiative and referendum cannot be extended to the process of ratifying federal constitutional amendments. By its pronouncement in Hawke v. Smith [5] the Court holds that a state constitutional provision, which allows or requires the referendum process to be used for the ratification of amendments proposed to the U.S. Constitution, stands in conflict with Art. 5, U.S. Const. Because the power to ratify an amendment is derived from the U.S. Constitution, neither courts nor legislative bodies (state or federal) may alter the textually prescribed process. Two years later in Leser v. Garnett [6] the Court, once again, condemned as unconstitutional any measure which attempts to place in the hands of the state electorate the power to ratify amendments proposed to the U.S. Constitution. Leser pronounces that the act of a state legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an exercise of a purely federal function. The procedural regime of the federal constitution trumps any barriers sought to be erected by the electorate of a state. A recent Arkansas initiative on congressional office term limits expresses a goal similar to that pressed for by the document before us today. [7] The measure instructs Arkansas' state legislators and congressional delegates to use all the powers of their respective offices to propose and secure a U.S. constitutional amendment that would limit congressional office terms. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in Donovan v. Priest, [8] held the measure offensive to the amendatory process of Art. 5, U.S. Const., and hence clearly contrary to the state's initiative process. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed on November 2, 1996 the effect of the Arkansas court's pronouncement during the pendency of certiorari proceedings. [9] Unlike the Arkansas court, which based its opinion on federal law, this court declares today that the measure is unfit for submission under the adequate and independent standards of Oklahoma's initiative process. [10] That fundamental-law regime is limited to facilitating effective changes in the state constitution or in the body of state statutory law. The measure in contest goes clearly beyond these parameters. II