States Right to Set Term Limits for Members of Congress

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

Some might say that the opinion of the majority, as expressed in the opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens, properly interprets the Constitution. The majority opinion concluded that states are not permitted to impose term limits on members of Congress, and that the Constitution gives the sole power to regulate the qualifications for serving in Congress to Congress itself. This interpretation, the Court argued, was consistent with the founders\' original intent of having a representative democracy where citizens can elect their representatives in Congress without undue interference from the states. The majority opinion thus, one might argue, upholds the principles of the Constitution, which seeks to protect the right to vote, freedom of expression, and the right of people to select their representatives, free from any outside influence. It could also be argued that this interpretation upholds the Biblical principle that all people are equal under the law and that no one should be denied the right to vote based on any criteria other than their qualifications. For as Proverbs 22:2 states, “The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the Maker of them all.” The idea that qualifications could be applied to who is allowed to serve in Congress would seemingly fly in the face of what Proverbs says here. And with that view in mind, one could say the majority opinion also upholds the principle that governments should be accountable to the people, and that elected leaders should be elected and re-elected based solely on their merit.

However, I believe that the dissenting opinion of Clarence Thomas is actually the better interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas critiqued the majority opinion when he wrote that “it is ironic that the Court bases today\'s decision on the right of the people to ‘choose whom they please to govern them.’ Under our Constitution, there is only one State whose people have the right to ‘choose whom they please’ to represent Arkansas in Congress ... Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”[footnoteRef:1] In other words, the Constitution does not say that States cannot put qualifications or term limits on who can serve in Congress—therefore, States may have such a law—and it would not violate the Constitution. That is true, as the Constitution is silent on the matter.[footnoteRef:2] And silence gives consent. Thomas’s point cannot be disputed. [1: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)] [2: Muller, Derek T. \"Weaponizing the Ballot.\" Fla. St. UL Rev. 48 (2020): 61.]

But from a biblical perspective is Thomas’s point warranted? This is where it requires a finer understanding of principles. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” In other words, the Bible teaches us to focus on the best—the most excellent. It calls us to set standards, to hold ourselves to the highest of standards. Therefore, if a State wants to set standards on who can serve to represent the state in Congress, there is nothing in the Bible that would appear to condemn it. On the contrary, the Bible appears to affirm it.

And again 1 Timothy 3:2 states, “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.” This again calls for standards—high-minded principles. The point of States setting qualifications about who can serve is precisely to this point. Yet, one might object that term limits is an arbitrary way to say who can serve and who cannot. It has nothing to do with character, honor, or nobility. But that is not true. Term limits are a kind of rule that can prevent political corruption and cronyism from taking root. For instance, if a politician knew he could serve in Congress in perpetuity, he would be targeted by people and groups and special interest lobbies with deep pockets; he could potentially be corrupted. But if States enacted term limits on representatives, it would be harder for these same groups to buy off a politician for life, as there would always be someone new to step in and represent the state. In short, term limits would protect the purity and intention of the office.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Ryan, Matthew M. \"Releasing the 1040, Not so EZ Constitutional Ambiguities Raised by State Laws Mandating Tax Return Release for Presidential Candidates.\" Hastings Const. LQ 47 (2019): 19.]