The U.S. Constitution, while designed to be enduring, is not immune to public discourse about potential amendments. Among the various proposals for constitutional change, the idea of imposing term limits on members of Congress, particularly senators, consistently garners significant public attention.
Recent surveys underscore this point. A September 2023 study by the Pew Research Center revealed that a striking 87 percent of Americans favor term limits for members of Congress. This sentiment is further reinforced by a March 2023 University of Maryland study, indicating that 83 percent of respondents support a constitutional amendment to enact these limits. Notably, this widespread support transcends partisan lines, with similar percentages across Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agreeing on the need for congressional term limits.
Despite this widespread public desire, the path to amending the Constitution is intentionally arduous. Throughout American history, only 27 amendments have been successfully added to the Constitution since 1787. The most recent addition, the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, prohibits Congress from altering its pay during a current term. Interestingly, this amendment was initially proposed in 1789, highlighting the often lengthy and complex process of constitutional change.
The Historical Debate Around Term Limits
The discussion surrounding term limits for legislators is rooted in a fundamental tension between different ideals of representation and governance. Proponents of term limits argue that regularly changing elected officials would lead to a Congress that is more responsive to the evolving needs and desires of the electorate. Conversely, opponents contend that term limits would deprive Congress of valuable experience, potentially leading to less effective policymaking and increased influence from lobbyists who possess institutional knowledge that inexperienced members lack.
The concept of legislative term limits is not a modern invention; its origins can be traced back even before the Constitution itself. As documented in a 2009 research paper by political scientist John David Rausch Jr., the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution, stipulated that no individual could serve as a delegate for more than three years within any six-year period. Furthermore, James Madison’s Virginia Plan, presented at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, proposed that legislators should be ineligible for reelection after their term and subject to recall.
However, the Founding Fathers ultimately decided against incorporating term limits into the Constitution. Rausch suggests several possible reasons for this decision. One theory posits that the existing practice of voluntary rotation in state legislatures made term limits seem less necessary. Another possibility is that the delegates could not reach a consensus on the optimal length of service. A further explanation is that the states were already considered to possess the authority to determine service limits for their congressional representatives.
The Federalist Papers, a series of essays arguing in favor of the Constitution’s ratification, also engaged with the term limits debate. Federalist No. 62, attributed to James Madison, emphasized the importance of experience in effective governance, asserting that “A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.”
However, Federalist No. 53, also attributed to Madison, cautioned against the risks of long tenures, warning that experienced representatives could become “masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.” Conversely, it also noted that an inexperienced legislature might be “more apt…to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.” This highlights the complex balancing act between the benefits of experience and the potential drawbacks of entrenched power.
The Supreme Court and State-Level Term Limits
While term limits for the presidency gained traction following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms, culminating in the 22nd Amendment in 1951, the movement for congressional term limits gained significant momentum in the 1990s.
During this period, several states attempted to implement term limits for their congressional representatives through state-level legislation. Arkansas, for example, amended its constitution to prevent individuals elected to three or more House terms or two or more Senate terms from appearing on the ballot. Around 21 other states adopted similar measures, seeking to circumvent the need for a federal constitutional amendment.
However, the Supreme Court case U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) effectively curtailed this state-led approach. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that states could not impose additional qualifications for members of Congress beyond those explicitly stated in the Constitution. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, argued that the Constitution’s framers intended for congressional qualifications to be uniform across the nation and fixed in the Constitution itself. He concluded that allowing states to create their own qualifications would undermine the structure envisioned by the framers, and that a constitutional amendment was the only legitimate way to alter these qualifications.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas contended that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit states from setting their own eligibility requirements for congressional candidates, arguing that the Constitution’s silence on this issue leaves room for state action. Despite this dissent, the U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton decision established that a constitutional amendment is the sole legal pathway to enact term limits for members of Congress.
Paths to a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits
Article V of the Constitution outlines two methods for amending the document. The more conventional method involves a proposal by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Congressional term limits were a central component of the Republican Party’s “Contract with America” in 1994. In 1997, the House of Representatives voted on a term limits amendment, but it failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority. A similar proposal in the Senate also did not reach a floor vote. The House proposal aimed for a 12-year limit in both the House and Senate, while the Senate version suggested six years in the House and 12 in the Senate.
More recently, in the 118th Congress, Representative Ralph Norman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced a congressional term limits amendment, proposing six-year terms for House members and 12-year terms for senators. However, in September 2023, the House Judiciary Committee voted down this resolution, indicating the ongoing challenges in achieving congressional consensus on this issue.
The less conventional route to constitutional amendment under Article V is through a constitutional convention called by the states. This method, which has never been utilized, requires at least 34 states to call for a convention, and any proposed amendment would then need ratification by 38 states. Efforts to convene such a convention have historically faced obstacles, and the uncharted nature of this process raises numerous questions about procedures and potential outcomes. Concerns include the difficulty of achieving identical language across 34 state legislatures, the uncertain role of Congress in the process, and the risk of a “runaway” convention that could propose amendments beyond the intended scope.
Organizations like U.S. Term Limits advocate for an Article V convention specifically focused on congressional term limits. While a convention has never been convened, the potential threat of one can incentivize Congress to act. A historical example is the movement for direct election of senators in the early 20th century. Faced with growing calls for an Article V convention from over 25 states, Congress ultimately passed a joint resolution, which was ratified as the 17th Amendment, establishing the direct election of senators and averting a convention.
Understanding why there are no term limits for senators requires considering the historical debates, constitutional framework, and political dynamics that have shaped this ongoing discussion. While public support for term limits remains strong, the hurdles to amending the Constitution, combined with the complex considerations surrounding the impact of term limits on governance, mean that the question of whether senators and representatives should face term limits remains a subject of active debate and unlikely to be resolved easily.
