What US Supreme Court case is revelant to Amendment 26?

Answer 1

The only one that I am aware of that was fairly recent was the rejection of the right of Washington D.C. residents to elect Senators and Representatives. The court upheld the 23rd Amendment which allows D.C. residents to only elect electorals for the electoral college (there's a tongue twister!).

search a better source this guy is a moron!

Lol... I TOTALLY agree..

Answer 2

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, Presidential Tenure, was ratified on February 27, 1951, and relates to term limitations for the office of President: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

The 22nd Amendment has not been tested or applied, so there have been no opportunities for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue.

The only US Supreme Court case related in any way to term limitations was one concerning an amendment to the Arkansas state constitution.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995)

Arkansas adopted Amendment 73 to their state constitution on November 3, 1992, after voters ratified the amendment at the polls. The "Term Limitation Amendment" sought to limit the number of times a Congressperson could be elected to office. It set the limit at three terms for members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and at two terms for members of the U.S. Senate, on the grounds that entrenched incumbency reduces voter participation, and that the incumbent becomes so preoccupied with reelection that they neglect their duties as representatives of the People.

Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have the amendment invalidated as unconstitutional. The state courts agreed with Hill, but the State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas Amendment 73 was in conflict with Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3, respectively, which imposes no term limitations on the Offices in question. The Court held that States cannot apply stricter standards than those specified in the U.S. Constitution. This ruling invalidated the term limitations set by 23 states.

Repealing the 22nd Amendment?

There are rumors circulating on the internet that President Obama wants to repeal the 22nd Amendment and continue to serve indefinitely. Obama denies these aspirations, and does not support any legislation proposing such a change. The foundation of the rumor may be the House Resolution proposed by Representative José Serrano (D-NY) for the past seven successive Congressional Sessions (beginning with the 105th Congress, in 1997) and continuing through the current 111th Congress. This is a one-man campaign. H.J. Res. 5 "Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to Repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment" has never had a co-sponsor or party support. All seven iterations of the measure have died in the House Judiciary Committee.

Answer 3

the most recent case is called: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder the question is whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still needed after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama

Answer 4

I was asigned a paper and many things i needed to find out about the 22nd amendment, one of which was to find a supreme court case related to it, but as i took hours trying to research it, i figured out that, there is no possible way there could be a court case on it. Because the 22nd amendment is that the president only has 4 years maximum in office, and no president has argued with it. so i wrote a paragraph explaining that there couldn't be a court case concerning it because no president has refused it before.

Answer 5

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112 (1970)

Answer

Congress and the states ratified the Twenty-sixth Amendment, reducing the legal voting age in national, state and local elections from 21 to 18, on July 5, 1971, in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, (1970)

Explanation

On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed into law an amendment (not a constitutional amendment) to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, supplementing the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite" on citizens or denying the right to vote on the basis of race or color. The primary purpose of the legislation was to outlaw the widespread practice of administering literacy tests to prospective voters as a means of preventing African-Americans from voting.

The 1970 amendment included a provision reducing the legal voting age from 21 to 18 in all national, state and local elections, reasoning anyone old enough to be conscripted (drafted) should have the right to vote.

Texas and Oregon immediately challenged the statute as unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court held that some aspects of the law were unconstitutional.

According to the Court, Congress has the authority to permit 18-year-olds to vote in national elections, under Article I, Section 4, Article II, Section 1, and the Necessary and Proper Clause; however, Article I, Section 2, assigns the states power to determine qualifications required for voting in state and local elections.

The Literary Test ban was upheld as constitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified to address voting age inconsistencies between the states and federal government, because states were concerned they may need to maintain separate registries and dates or locations for state and federal elections.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Answer 6

yes there is a lot just type in court cases for amendment 8 and you will get an answer