Issue.  Does the state of Arkansas have the power, consistent with the Constitution, to limit the number of terms its members to Congress may serve?

Background.  Arkansas passed an amendment to its Constitution which barred an individual from being on the ballot if that candidate had already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate.  The Arkansas Supreme Court found that this amendment violated the U.S. Constitution.  The matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which agreed.

Court's Analysis.  The Federal Constitution provides the qualifications for member of Congress.  Those advocating term limits claimed that such authority was not absolute and that the Tenth Amendment reserved the right for States to add additional qualifications for members of Congress.

The Court rejected the 10th Amendment argument on two grounds:  1.)  the right to add qualifications is not within the "original powers" of the States that were reserved by the 10th Amendment; and, 2.) the Framers intended the Constitution to be the sole authority for determining qualifications for representatives and if the States had any "reserved" powers, it was "divested" by the Constitution.

With respect to the first ground, the Court noted that the 10th Amendment could only "reserve" those powers which the States already possessed at the time the Constitution was written.  Powers which sprung from the national government or the Constitution could not have been possessed by the States before the formation of the national government.  Simply, there was nothing to "reserve" since the States did not have the power to add qualifications to representatives in the national government before such a government was created.

The Court assumed, with respect to the second ground, that the States did reserve such powers to add qualifications to members of Congress.  Even if the States did have such reserved powers, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system.  The national government is to represent the nation and allowing States to add qualifications to representation would undermine the uniform and national character that the Framers envisioned.  Therefore, if the States did "reserve" such powers, the Framers "divested" them of the powers in the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the States could add qualification under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 that allowed States to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of Holding Elections."  The Framers intended that clause to grant the States the authority to create procedural regulations, not to provide the States with license to exclude classes of candidates from Federal office.

Thus, since the Constitution is the sole authority for determining the qualifications of members of Congress, the State may not add new qualifications, including term limits.