Some Republican Senators are proposing a constitutional amendment that would put term limits on Congress — two terms (12 years) for a Senator, three terms (6 years) for a Congressperson.
I recognize that proposed constitutional amendments have about a one-in-more-than-a-thousand chance of ever going anywhere, and that they get introduced just to get attention and look like someone is doing something. That said, I've always thought term limits were a rotten, anti-democratic idea. If I'm happy with my Congressman — and I am with Henry Waxman — and he wants to serve another term, why should someone else say I can't have him? If the problem is that he amasses too much power by staying there, then change the seniority system. That's a lot easier than a constitutional amendment would be.
And if the premise is that by serving multiple terms, a rep becomes too susceptible to bribes from lobbyists…well, I don't understand that at all. It seems to me that if I got elected to Congress and I knew there was no way I could build a whole career there, I'd immediately start lining up my next job. That would mean cozying up to big companies that might hire me when I left office.
I can sorta/kinda buy the idea of limiting the president since it might not be grand to have the whole executive branch configured around one person so long. It could mean that when the next Chief Exec came around, he or she could never eliminate the influence of the previous Chief Exec. But no member of Congress shapes the legislative branch that much and when a long-term seat occupant finally departs, the replacement doesn't seem to have that much trouble taking over.
So I really don't get the argument for Term Limits. We trust the electorate to vote in the right people when there are openings. Why can't we trust them to just vote out the wrong people because they've been there too long?