Yes, the recent history of both bodies of Congress requires a response to the abuse akin to the response levied against the executive in the wake of FDR.
However, I think it better to make it a simple amendment that allows the individual States, if they so choose, to enact term limits on their federal representation and let each State decide for themselves if they will limit the terms and if so, what those limits will be rather than a blanket policy that applies across the board. A much easier sell IMNTBHO, which would make passage of the amendment much easier.
Colorado already has, or at least did at one time unless Polis' "update" removed it from the rolls, a law where the voters of Colorado enacted term limits on their federal representatives in Congress, which was quickly challenged in federal court and overturned on the basis that Colorado couldn't impose terms on the qualifications for the House and Senate not found in the Constitution.
There is no reason there needs to be a national standard on term limits for Congress critters . . . but the individual sovereign States should have the ability to enact limits if that is the consent given by those governed in that State.
The argument against term limits has always been an increased level of experience with those who stay in forever. I think there is an increased chance of corruption with little benefit from time served. How has it worked out for the voters? I think it hasn’t worked out well at all given our current bloated bureaucracy.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
It's not so much "experience" as it is a seat of power. McConnell kept Garland's nomination from being considered. No way Grassley pulls that off, nor could anyone other than Pelosi have whipped up the votes necessary to pass the Senate version of the (un)Affordable Care Act after they lost their 3/5 majority in the MA special election where a solid blue state elected a Republican Senator in an effort to stop the steam roller.
What was it, something north of 60% of the populace that opposed the legislation that the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress? Democracy my posterior . . . Democrats are only interested in forcing their agenda down the throats of the populace at any and every opportunity.
Yes, one of the arguments against term limits is that it would increase the power of bureaucrats and the staffs for the politicians.
In essence, Pelosi goes away but her chief of staff goes to work for the next winner of her seat.
Or because so much of the new House members and Senators are newbies, they will be easy to control by bureaucrats and their own office staff.
Of course when you have senile aged leaders like Biden and McConnell in office, the staff may already be in control.
The old joke about Teddy Kennedy was he was so brain addled, his staff just had him read the file cards his staff gave to him, not actually understanding his questions.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
