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; theLordis 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...

For that reason, Thomass dissenting opinion is also supported by a biblical perspective, which calls for honor and integrity at all times. Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion argued that the Constitution does not bar states from imposing term limits on members of Congress. The counter argument, of course, is that while Thomas's opinion respects the principle of state sovereignty, it fails to recognize the larger implications of allowing states to interfere in the selection of representatives in Congress. If states were allowed to impose term limits, this could effectively disenfranchise some citizens by preventing them from voting for their preferred representatives.

Yet this counter argument is disingenuous. It does not deprive people from selecting a representative. It simply sets a standard, which is Biblical in essence, for the Bible calls on us to have and set standards, and to rid ourselves of corruption insofar as is possible: I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;…