Eleanor Finch
The United States Constitution does not limit how many terms members of Congress can serve. While the 22nd Amendment (1951) limits presidents to two four-year terms, no such constitutional limit exists at the congressional level. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states could not impose term limits on members of Congress, and that only a constitutional amendment could place such restrictions. Despite several attempts, no amendment to impose congressional term limits has been successful.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Public opinion on congressional term limits | In a September 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 87% of respondents supported term limits for members of Congress. |
| In a March 2023 study from the University of Maryland, 83% of respondents favored a constitutional amendment to establish congressional term limits. | |
| Democrats: 80%, Republicans: 86%, Independents: 84% | |
| Attempts to pass congressional term limits | In 1995, the Republican-controlled Congress initiated a proposed amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms. The proposal was defeated in Congress. |
| In 1997, the House voted on a congressional term limits amendment, but it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed. | |
| In 2016, USTL launched its Term Limits Convention to amend the Constitution to require congressional term limits. | |
| In 2023, Rep. Ralph Norman and Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a congressional term limits amendment, limiting the terms to six years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. The House Judiciary committee voted down the resolution 19-17. | |
| Supreme Court rulings on state-level term limits | In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose term limits on members of Congress in addition to those stated in the Constitution. |
| Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 5-4 majority that "the Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress...be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation." | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that nothing in the Constitution deprives states of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for Congressional candidates. | |
| Constitutional amendment process | Article V of the Constitution provides two paths to amend the Constitution: |
| The conventional path requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose language, with three-quarters of states ratifying the amendment. | |
| The unconventional path involves a constitutional convention of the states, which has never happened before. At least 34 states would need to call the convention, and 38 states would need to ratify the amendment. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose term limits on Congress
- The Constitution does not limit House members or Senators to a set number of terms
- The Constitution is rarely changed, and amendments are challenging to pass
- Term limits could increase corruption as former members become lobbyists
- Congress is unlikely to propose amendments limiting their own power
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose term limits on Congress
The U.S. Constitution is rarely changed, but there has been much speculation about the next amendment to the nation's founding document. One idea that has gained popularity in recent years is an amendment to limit how long members of Congress can serve in office. In a September 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 87% of respondents supported term limits for members of Congress.
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states could not impose term limits on members of Congress. The Court decided, in a 5-4 split decision, that citizens are not allowed to term-limit their own members of Congress using state laws. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said that "the Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation." He concluded that "in the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers."
Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, wrote that "nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress." The Court's decision left open the possibility of a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress. Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two paths to amend the Constitution. The conventional path requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose language to the states, with three-quarters of the states ratifying the amendment. The unconventional path involves calling a constitutional convention of the states, which has never happened before. At least 34 states would need to call the convention, and 38 states would need to ratify any proposed amendment.
Since the Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, there have been several efforts to amend the Constitution to include term limits for members of Congress. In 1997, the House voted on a congressional term limits amendment, but it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed. More recently, Rep. Ralph Norman and Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a similar amendment, which was voted down by the House Judiciary committee in September 2023. The U.S. Term Limits (USTL) organization has also advocated for term limits at all levels of government and is working towards a constitutional amendment. As of 2025, they reported that 17 of the needed 34 states had passed resolutions calling for an Article V constitutional convention.
Iran's Constitution: Freedom of Expression Examined
You may want to see also
The Constitution does not limit House members or Senators to a set number of terms
The United States Constitution, established in 1789, does not impose term limits on members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. This absence of congressional term limits has sparked debates and efforts to amend the Constitution.
Article I of the Constitution, which establishes the legislative branch, does not restrict the number of terms that House members or Senators can serve. This stands in contrast to the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, which limits the President to two four-year terms.
The absence of congressional term limits has led to high reelection rates for incumbents, with rates at or above 90% by the end of the 20th century. This has sparked concerns about the transformation of America into an oligarchy, dominated by a small group of wealthy and powerful career politicians.
Advocates of congressional term limits argue that it will curb corruption and prevent special interest groups from gaining excessive influence. They believe that lawmakers who are not concerned about reelection will make decisions based on the merits of bills rather than external pressures.
However, opponents of term limits point out that amending the Constitution is a challenging task. Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two paths to proposing amendments. The conventional path requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to propose an amendment, with subsequent ratification by three-quarters of the states. The unconventional path involves a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 states), with any proposed amendment needing ratification by 38 states.
While there have been attempts to introduce congressional term limits, such as the Republican-led effort in 1995, these have faced significant obstacles. The topic remains a subject of ongoing debate and discussion.
Engaging Young Adults in Constitutional Conversations
You may want to see also
The Constitution is rarely changed, and amendments are challenging to pass
The United States Constitution is a challenging document to change and amend. The Constitution was created to be a sturdy framework for the country, and its creators understood that it may need to adapt as the nation grew. However, they also wanted to prevent it from being too easily changed, which could lead to instability.
Article V of the Constitution outlines the two paths to amend it. The first, conventional path requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to propose an amendment, with three-quarters of states ratifying it. This is a challenging threshold to meet, and it is further complicated by political divisions and the self-interest of incumbent lawmakers, who may not wish to limit their time in office.
The second, unconventional path has never been used. It involves at least 34 states calling for a constitutional convention to propose amendments, with 38 states needing to ratify any changes. This path is even more difficult, as it has never been attempted, and there are questions about the procedures that would be followed.
The rarity of changes to the Constitution means that even popular ideas can struggle to gain traction. For example, in a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 87% of respondents supported term limits for members of Congress. However, this has not translated into a successful amendment, despite multiple attempts.
The Constitution's Article V, which outlines the path to amendment, is the only way to change the qualifications for Congress, as ruled by the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. This case shut down state-level attempts to impose term limits on Congress, ruling that only a constitutional amendment could place such limits.
Protein Mystery: CTR1, a Protein or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Term limits could increase corruption as former members become lobbyists
The U.S. Constitution is rarely changed, but there has been much speculation about the next amendment to the nation's founding document. In recent years, several ideas have gained some popular support, including an amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. A September 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 87% of respondents supported term limits for members of Congress.
However, congressional term limits face a challenging constitutional path. In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not add qualifications for office for members of Congress in addition to those explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Court decided that the qualifications for service in Congress "be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation". As such, only a constitutional amendment could place term limits on members of Congress.
Despite the popularity of this idea, there are several reasons why congressional term limits could be a bad idea. One such reason is that term limits could increase corruption as former members become lobbyists.
Political experience is a double-edged sword. While it can expedite government performance, it can also increase political power, which may lead to corruption. Studies have found that stricter term limits increase the frequency of corruption incidents but reduce the expected cost per incident. Term limit advocates argue that lawmakers who do not have to worry about being re-elected will not be tempted to "cave in" to pressure from special interest groups and their lobbyists, instead basing their votes solely on the merits of the bills before them.
However, history has shown that inexperienced, term-limited state legislators are more likely to turn to special interests and lobbyists for information and "direction" on legislation and policy issues. With term limits, the number of influential former members of Congress would increase dramatically, and many of those former members would go on to work for private-sector lobbying firms, where their deep knowledge of the political process helps to advance special interests. This is known as the "revolving door" phenomenon.
In addition, term limits would likely result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. With term limits, there would be a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.
Therefore, while term limits may appear to be a solution to corruption in Congress, they could in fact have the opposite effect, increasing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups.
Understanding Certified Copies of Wills
You may want to see also
Congress is unlikely to propose amendments limiting their own power
Congress is an incredibly powerful institution with a wide array of responsibilities and abilities. One of the key aspects of its power lies in the ability of its members to serve indefinitely, with no term limits imposed on them by the Constitution. While there are some restrictions, such as the need for re-election every two or six years, depending on the chamber, these are not true term limits as they do not impose a maximum number of terms an individual can serve. The absence of term limits for Congress is a notable feature of the US political system, and it is unlikely that Congress will propose amendments to impose restrictions on their own terms.
One of the primary reasons for this reluctance is that term limits would directly contradict the interests of incumbent members of Congress. The power and influence of a congressional representative or senator grow with their time in office, and they acquire valuable experience, knowledge of legislative processes, and seniority within committees. Term limits would disrupt this accumulation of power and expertise, and it is unlikely that members of Congress would support a measure that could potentially diminish their own influence and that of their colleagues.
Additionally, the proposal of term limits could be seen as an admission of failure or a lack of trust in the current system. Members of Congress might interpret it as a suggestion that they are unable to effectively self-regulate and require external constraints to prevent abuse of power. This could be a difficult message for them to endorse, particularly given the potential consequences for their own reputations and the perception of Congress as a whole. The proposal of term limits could also shift the focus to other areas where self-regulation may be lacking, inviting scrutiny that members of Congress might prefer to avoid.
Furthermore, the proposal of term limits could have a significant impact on the institutional memory and expertise within Congress. The departure of long-serving members could result in a loss of historical context, knowledge of legislative procedures, and understanding of complex policy issues. This could potentially weaken the legislative branch relative to the executive and judicial branches, as well as lobbyists and special interest groups who have specialized knowledge and consistent access to lawmakers. Members of Congress may be reluctant to support term limits if they perceive it as undermining the power and effectiveness of the legislative branch as a whole.
The Constitution's Judicial Branch: Where is it Created?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Congressional term limits refer to restrictions on the number of terms that members of the United States Congress can serve.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the structure of Congress, does not include any limits on the number of terms that House members or Senators can serve. While there have been efforts to amend the Constitution to include term limits, none have been successful.
Yes, there have been several attempts to impose congressional term limits. In 1995, the Republican-controlled Congress proposed an amendment to limit House members to six two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms. However, this proposal was defeated. More recently, Rep. Ralph Norman and Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a similar amendment, but it was voted down by the House Judiciary committee in 2023.
Proponents of congressional term limits argue that unlimited terms can lead to an oligarchy, where a small group of wealthy and powerful career politicians dominate the government. They also believe that term limits can reduce corruption by eliminating the pressure of reelection and allowing lawmakers to make decisions based on the merits of the bills.
Opponents of congressional term limits argue that they may not effectively limit corruption. In fact, political scientists have found that term-limited state legislators are more likely to turn to special interest groups and lobbyists for information and direction. Additionally, the experience and institutional knowledge gained by serving over multiple terms can be valuable for effective governance.
