The first thing that I notice here is how specific this is. The Senate limit seems to be modeled after the Presidential term limit, but the House one seems arbitrary. Is it designed to mirror the eight years that a President may serve? Why not make it six two-year terms, so that all legislators max out at 12?"Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime.Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime.The two-term limit for President shall remain unchanged. Serving as a member of Congress or as the President of the United States is one of the highest honors and privileges our culture can bestow.These positions of power and prominence in our society should be sought to serve one’s country and not provide a lifetime career designed to increase personal wealth and power."
Regardless, on its face, this provision seems reasonable enough. Upon further reading, it turns out that there's a giant debate about the concept.
The pro- argument seems to boil down to the idea that implementing term limits increases turnover, and turnover is necessary to ensure fairness, minimize corruption, and to bring fresh ideas to the legislature. The con- argument seems to be that there are good men and women in the legislature, and they should not be penalized because some legislators can't act ethically. If there is meaningful ethics reform, the argument goes, term limits are unnecessary.
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. I'm tending to lean toward the pro- side. I think that yes, there are good congressmen, but they aren't the only good people out there. Especially in the two-party system that we have now, if the incumbent tends to agree with my views, I'm not going to run against him. I might be just as ethical as he is, and hold generally the same views, but I'll let him continue his ride, while I might have something new to bring to the table that he doesn't. If he were at the end of the limit of his term, I might consider running for his position, and he would be replaced with someone ethical, who generally agrees with his positions, but has a different slant on things. That's a good thing, I think.
There is something else to consider here, though. In order to impose term limits on Congress, we would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The main way to do this is to have an amendment proposed in both the House and the Senate, have it pass by a 2/3 majority in both houses, then each 3/4 of the states' legislatures need to support the amendment by a simple majority. This process usually have a time limit set on it, but it doesn't have to.
Meanwhile, there will be a major national debate. The people probably won't have any direct say (unless the amendment is to be ratified by convention, which has only been done once -- and even then each state has its own rules on how to hold a convention). Individual state legislative campaigns may be dominated by the issue.
Are we ready for all of that? Is this important enough to get the process going? Do we have any hope of getting a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress? Maybe the answer to all of these is yes.
We need to consider: is now the time to try to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on Congress?
