Citation network
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. Vs. Thornton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 29, 1994
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 779 (1994) October Term, 1994 Syllabus U. S. Term Limits, Inc., Et Al. V. ThorntonSearch
-
cl. 1, does not include the power to alter or add to the qualifications set forth in the Constitution's text. Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas v. HillSearch
-
and regularity of the election process by regulating 781 election procedures, see, e. g., Storer v. BrownSearch
-
Article v. AbsentSearch
-
for the United States Justice Foundation by James V. LacySearch
-
With respect to that holding, in a 5-to-2 decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. HillSearch
-
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision regarding severability, U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. HillSearch
-
Congress has the power to add to or alter the qualifications of its Members. Twenty-six years ago, in Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
Only two Terms ago we confirmed this understanding of Powell in Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
as absolute. In McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
resolved the issue whether Congress has the power to impose additional qualifications. See, e. g., Joyner v. MoffordSearch
-
Michel v. AndersonSearch
-
Stumpf v. LauSearch
-
commerce. However, though JUSTICE THOMAS has endorsed just that argument, see, e. g., Okla homa Tax Comm'n v. JeffersonSearch
-
Bendix Autolite Corp. v. MidwescoSearch
-
its historical analysis were consistent with prior decisions from state courts. For example, in State ex rel. Johnson v. CraneSearch
-
courts reached the same result, though without performing the same detailed historical analysis. See, e. g., Hellmann v. CollierSearch
-
Chandler v. HowellSearch
-
Eaton v. SchmahlSearch
-
see generally State ex rel. Johnson v. CraneSearch
-
impressive number of courts have determined that States lack the authority to add qualifications. See, e. g., Chandler v. HowellSearch
-
Eckwall v. StadelmanSearch
-
Stockton v. McFarlandSearch
-
Johnson v. CraneSearch
-
Dillon v. FiorinaSearch
-
Stack v. AdamsSearch
-
Buckingham v. StateSearch
-
Danielson v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
Courts have struck down state-imposed qualifications in the form of term limits, see, e. g., Thorsted v. GregoireSearch
-
Nev., at 830, 839 P. 2d, at 123, district residency requirements, see, e. g., Hellmann v. CollierSearch
-
Exon v. TiemannSearch
-
Chavez v. EvansSearch
-
N. M. 578, 581, 446 P. 2d 445, 448 (1968) (per curiam), loyalty oath requirements, see, e. g., Shub v. SimpsonSearch
-
Garcia v. SanSearch
-
see also New York v. UnitedSearch
-
Justice Story's position thus echoes that of Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Id., at 430. See also Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
Wes berry v. SandersSearch
-
instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States. See, e. g., FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 299 , 315 (1941). Cf. Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
S. Term Limits, Inc., Et Al. V. ThorntonSearch
-
Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas v. HillSearch
-
Storer v. BrownSearch
-
Article v. AbsentSearch
-
James v. LacySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial