1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state imposed limits on congressional tenure violate the Constitution and that term limits can only be set through passage and ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Repeated attempts with other ways to get around this ruling have been met by denial of further review by the Court.
Proponents contend that term limits would increase turnover and ensure a constant influx of new members, which would end built in advantages and promote competition in congressional elections, and they would enhance the role of merit rather than seniority in the distribution of power.
Opponents argue that term limits would infringe on citizens' right to determine who serves and for how long, remove many of the most competent and experienced Members from office prematurely, and result in a shift of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch, lobbyists, and congressional staff.
The problem with term limits at the Federal level is, either all have them, or none can have them. With the positions of power in Congress determined by seniority, any state delegation hobbled by term limits would be condemned to permanent junior status, which would mean that government programs that are needed would not be obtainable. The argument of opponents that this will erode the power of elected representatives to run the government can be clearly seen in the experience of California since 1992: no legislator is around long enough to understand how the system operates, leaving effective control of government in the hands of the governor, lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than the hands of the people's representatives; this certainly was not the goal of the reformers when they set out to establish term limits. Term limits is a political reform backed by the ill-informed.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: KILL IT OR KEEP IT?
Shortly after the polls closed in Iowa on election night, Florida was called ...