Jonah Patel
The question of imposing term limits on elected officials has been a topic of debate since the first discussions surrounding the Constitution's ratification. While there have been attempts to set congressional term limits through state legislation, the U.S. Supreme Court struck these down as unconstitutional in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). However, the Court's decision suggested that term limits could be established through a constitutional amendment. Since then, there have been various efforts to pursue this strategy, with some states passing resolutions calling for a federal constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. The debate over congressional term limits continues, with proponents arguing for increased accountability and a return to the Founding Fathers' vision of citizen legislators.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Congressional term limits set without a constitutional amendment | Cannot be done |
| Term limits for Congress | Requires a constitutional amendment |
| Article V Convention | Requires 34 state legislatures |
| States that have passed term limits exclusive application | WV, FL, MO, AL, WI, TN, LA, NC, OK, SD, IN, and SC |
| States that have approved resolutions for Congress to propose a federal constitutional amendment | South Dakota, Florida |
| States that have passed Article V convention applications for a limited government that includes term limits on Congress | 19 |
| States that have passed the term limits exclusive application | 12 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Good Behaviour Clause
One interpretation of the Good Behaviour Clause is that it indicates that judges are not appointed for set terms and cannot be removed from office at will. In other words, judges hold their offices for life unless they are impeached and convicted of a high crime or misdemeanour. This interpretation is supported by historical precedent, as Congress has never removed a federal judge due to disagreement over the application of the law or because of differences in political views. For example, in 1804, an attempt was made to remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, who was viewed by Jeffersonian Republicans as openly partisan and biased against their party. The attempt failed, and no federal judge has been removed for similar reasons since.
However, the Good Behaviour Clause does not insulate federal judges from criminal prosecution. Judges can be prosecuted and impeached if they break the law, become corrupt, or sit in on cases in which they have a personal or family stake. Additionally, the clause does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct. The range of conduct meriting removal may differ between judges and executive branch officials due to the distinct nature of each office.
In summary, the Good Behaviour Clause in the US Constitution has been interpreted to mean that federal judges hold their offices for life unless impeached and convicted of a high crime or misdemeanour. This interpretation has been debated, and the clause has been cited in discussions about term limits for members of Congress, which some argue should be implemented through a constitutional amendment.
Congressional Constraints: Amendments Limit Lawmakers' Powers
You may want to see also
Supreme Court term limits
Congressional term limits cannot be set without a constitutional amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that state governments cannot limit the terms of members of the national government. However, this does not preclude the possibility of term limits for Supreme Court justices.
The United States Constitution currently provides life tenure for Supreme Court justices, stating that they shall hold their offices during "good behaviour". However, there is a growing movement advocating for term limits or mandatory retirement ages for Supreme Court justices. This is largely due to the increasing life expectancy, which has resulted in justices serving for longer periods, with the average tenure since 1970 being around 25 to 26 years.
Proposals for term limits include the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization (TERM) Act, reintroduced by Congressman Hank Johnson, which suggests an 18-year term limit and a regularized appointments process. This proposal aims to restore balance and legitimacy to the Court by ensuring that each president has the opportunity to appoint two justices during their term, thereby promoting long-term ideological balance. The "senior justice" approach is another proposal, where justices would be obligated to retire from active service on the high court but could continue to serve in lower federal courts. This approach avoids constitutional issues by not entirely removing justices from judicial service.
While some analysts argue that term limits for Supreme Court justices can be implemented without a constitutional amendment, others suggest that an amendment would provide more stability and certainty. The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V, which requires a proposal by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions.
Amendments Adopted: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
State-level term limits
Despite this setback, supporters of term limits have continued their efforts at the state level. In the 1994 U.S. elections, the Republican platform included legislation for term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, a Republican congressman proposed a constitutional amendment to limit members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. While this particular amendment did not garner enough support, it sparked further discussion about the need for term limits.
Since then, several state legislatures have approved resolutions calling on Congress to propose a federal constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms for members of Congress. States that have taken such action include South Dakota (1989), Florida (2012 and 2016), and twelve other states that have passed exclusive term limits applications as of 2025: WV, FL, MO, AL, WI, TN, LA, NC, OK, SD, IN, and SC. These states are using the procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution, which allows for a constitutional call-to-action when 34 state legislatures demand it.
The argument for state-level term limits is often based on the idea of accountability and preventing politicians from becoming entrenched and out of touch with their constituents. Proponents of term limits believe that elected officials should serve for a reasonable period, make bold and tough choices, and then return to live under the laws they enacted. This aligns with the vision of the Founding Fathers, who intended for Congress to be a representative body of the people, with legislators serving for a short time before going back to their communities.
The 13th Amendment: Enshrined Freedom in 1865
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Congressional statute options
The question of congressional term limits has been a topic of debate for decades, with proponents arguing that it would bring about much-needed accountability and ensure that elected officials remain connected to the people they represent. While there have been attempts to impose term limits on Congress through state laws, the U.S. Supreme Court struck these down as unconstitutional in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). The Court ruled that state governments do not have the power to limit the terms of members of the national government.
However, this does not mean that congressional term limits are entirely off the table. Proponents have suggested that term limits for Congress can be achieved through a constitutional amendment. This strategy is currently being pursued by organizations like U.S. Term Limits (USTL), which aims to trigger a constitutional call-to-action by gathering demands from 34 state legislatures, as outlined in Article V.
While the focus has primarily been on pursuing a constitutional amendment, there is also discussion about the possibility of congressional statute options. The Congressional Research Service, in a December 2023 report, raised questions about Congress's ability to set term limits by statute. Most commentators agree that Congress cannot impose term limits on the Supreme Court without amending the Constitution due to the "'good behaviour' clause in Article III, which guarantees life tenure for Supreme Court justices. However, supporters of the congressional statute option interpret "good behaviour" differently, arguing that it does not indicate a lifetime appointment. They propose an active/senior justice model where justices would become senior justices after a set term and continue their judicial service in a different capacity. This model is supported by organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice, which believes it aligns with the Constitution's text and values of judicial independence.
Despite the arguments in favour of congressional statute options, the majority view is that a constitutional amendment is necessary to impose term limits on Congress. This is evidenced by the introduction of a constitutional amendment by Senator Ted Cruz and his colleagues to impose term limits on members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Their amendment proposes limiting Senators to two six-year terms and members of the House to three two-year terms. Senator Cruz and his supporters believe that term limits are essential for keeping elected officials accountable and ensuring that Congress remains representative of the people.
The 23rd Amendment: A Historic Addition in 1961
You may want to see also
Presidential term limits
The Twenty-second Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, limits the US presidency to two four-year terms. The full text of the amendment is as follows:
> No person shall be elected to the office of 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 President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by 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.
The question of presidential term limits dates back to the first debates surrounding the Constitution's ratification. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison envisioned a president who would be nominated by Congress to serve for life, but this raised concerns that the US would become an "elective monarchy". The idea of a two-term limit gained traction after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term in 1944, and the Twenty-second Amendment was proposed by the House of Representatives in 1947.
Since the Twenty-second Amendment's ratification, several attempts have been made to modify or repeal it. Supporters of repeal have argued for the benefits of consistent leadership in response to a crisis, for example. However, the amendment has also faced criticism. In 2007, Larry J. Sabato argued that the success of term limits at the state level suggests they should be adopted at the federal level.
While there is a movement to impose term limits on Congress, this would require an amendment to the US Constitution. According to Article V of the Constitution, amendments must be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority in both houses or by a convention of states, and they must be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. While several term limit amendment bills have been proposed, none have passed with the required majority.
Understanding North Carolina's Constitutional Amendments
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No. While there have been several attempts to set congressional term limits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) that state governments cannot limit the terms of members of the national government.
Supporters of congressional term limits argue that elected office should represent a short-term privilege of public service, rather than a career choice. They believe that members of Congress should serve for a reasonable period and then return home to live under the laws they enacted.
Opponents of congressional term limits argue that the current status quo in Washington isn't working for the American people. They believe that members of Congress should be willing to put the best interests of Americans first and make bold, tough choices to get the nation back on track.
The process to amend the Constitution is outlined in Article V. It requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments, or two-thirds of the state legislatures to request a convention for proposing amendments. The proposed amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the states in convention.
