Opinion ID: 1452513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: submission of the proposed measure would put oklahoma at risk of disapproving action by the u.s. congress acting in the exercise of its enforcement powers under the guarantee clause of the u.s. constitution [11]

Text: The U.S. Constitution provides that [t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. [12] The Guarantee Clause is a major constitutional norm which the U.S. Supreme Court has held to be judicially unenforceable. [13] Our own jurisprudence recognizes the Guarantee Clause's nonjusticiability. [14] Although the clause is nonjusticiable, it is nonetheless enforceable by action of the U.S. Congress exercising its power to deny an offending state's congressional delegation its seat in the federal lawmaking assembly. [15] The proposed measure calls for  instructing  the members of the state legislature to use all of their delegated powers to apply to the Congress for a national constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a congressional office term limit amendment. The measure's critical statement for the support of these limits, which one of the dissents would have this court declare fit for submission, is clearly subject to condemnation as calling for an impermissible plebiscite. That offending section's text is: Section 2Public Policy of Oklahoma Regarding Federal Term Limits. It is hereby declared to be the Public Policy of the State of Oklahoma that the terms of office of Members of the United States Congress should be limited to three terms for members of the House of Representatives and two terms for Members of the Senate, and the United States Constitution should be amended to so provide. The only legitimate lawmakers for our State are (1) the legislators sitting in both houses of her assembly and (2) the people who invoke their fundamental-law power of initiative and referendum to affect state law. The proposed measure goes beyond the parameters of state constitutional initiative and referendum. It is an attempt to force a plebiscite upon the proponents' federal-law objective. This court cannot place its imprimatur upon the use of the state initiative either for public opinion polls [16] or for a pure plebiscite. A contrary actionone that would approve submission of the measure in contextwould recast this State's political system into a form vulnerable to attack for offending basic republicanism. It would put this State at risk of (a) losing congressional accreditation for Oklahoma's elected delegation to the Congress and (b) descending to a clouded status as a co-equal participant in this Nation's Union of sister states. In sum, even if approved, the initiative in contest could not transform popular will into any form of effective, enforceable or binding law. Regardless of whether this measure calls for a change in the body of state or federal law, it is unfit for submission because its text cannot become state law. State lawmakers, like their federal counterparts, cannot be compelled to cast a vote in obedience to an electorate's instructions. [17] Moreover, Oklahoma's fundamental law does not permit invocation of the state initiative and referendum process for a change in the U.S. Constitution or in the body of federal law. [18] III