Term Limits

The Constitution
Article 1, Section 2, in part: The House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and
the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors
of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a
Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years
and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Article 1, Section 3, in part: The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,*] for six
Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. No Person shall be a Senator
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years and been nine Years a
Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State for which he shall be chosen.
*Changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment.
Why there are no Term Limits
As of the end of the twentieth century, there was no constitutional limit to the
number of terms that members of the House may serve but limiting the
number of terms for House members had become an important political issue
in the 1990s.
Those who favored term limits argued that representatives must spend so
much time running and raising funds for reelection that they might be too
willing to go along with the political interests of the majority. Supporters
insisted that term limits would ensure that the membership of the House

would regularly change, and this steady turnover would foster new ideas and
help speed up its slow moving, bureaucratic pace.
Those who opposed term limits argued that the responsiveness of the House to
the people’s will is its great strength. They believed that representatives who
have served for several terms bring valuable experience to the institution.
Most important, they pointed out that term limits would keep many well-
qualified, popular representatives from being elected again, even though the
voters in their districts may have wanted them to remain in office.
In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that no state may limit
the number of terms to which its voters may elect members to congress. This
decision indicated that an amendment to the Constitution may be required in
order to limit congressional terms. (The Constitution and its Amendments,
Volume 1, Newman, 1999)
Reasons for Term Limits
The most common argument against term limits goes something like this:
"We already have term limits. They're called elections." The primary case
against term limits is that, indeed, our elected officials in the House and
Senate must face their constituents every two years or every six years and get
their approval.
Imposing term limits, opponents argue, would remove the power from voters
in favor of an arbitrary law. For example, a popular lawmaker seen by her
constituents as being effective and influential would want to re-elect her to
Congress - but could be barred from doing so by a term-limit law. (The
Debate over Term Limits, Tom Murse, January 2019)

Senate and House Members at Risk
One of the tenets in the proposed Convention of States is the implementation
of term limits for Congress. The following summary is based on proposed
term limits of 10, 12, and 16 years for the Senate and House of
Representatives.
In the Senate; 35 Senators would meet the term limit of 10 years, 27 Senators
would meet the term limit of 12 years, and 20 Senators would meet the term
limit of 16 years. A total of 19 Democrats and 16 Republicans would be
affected at the 10-year term.
In the House; 110 Representatives would meet the term limit of 10 years, 89
Representatives would meet the term limit of 12 years, and 56 Representatives
would meet the term limit of 16 years. A total of 69 Democrats and 41
Republicans would be affected at the 10-year term limit.
The Federalist Papers #63
The importance of term limits can best be described by the following text in
The Federalist Papers #63: Madison, The Senate Continued.
‘In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by
examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the
Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate
appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must
gradually acquire a dangerous preeminence in the government, and finally
transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.’
‘To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty
may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power;
that there are numerous instances of former, rather than the latter, are

apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more
particular reply may be given.’
‘Before such a revolution can be affected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must
in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must
then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the
people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it
can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State
legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of
members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the
means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the
opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat
the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of
new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is
there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate
can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at
the object of a lawless ambition, though all these obstructions?’
This was written at the time the Senate was elected by the State Legislatures.
The Seventeenth Amendment changed the process to an election by the people
of the individual states. The same concerns for no term limits would still apply.