The Pros And Cons Of Congressional Term Limits Of Congress

To impose limits on congressional terms, Congress would have to amend the Constitution (Zubler, 1995). This idea is not unexpected or even unheard of as Congress has amended the Constitution several times to include, most notable, setting limits on Presidential terms in 1947. Congress would be a vastly different arena if an amendment regarding term limits was accepted. If a six-year limit was imposed, 59% of the House would have been forced out of office. If an eight-year limit was imposed, 40% of the House would have been forced out of office. If a twelve-year limit was imposed, 29% of the House and 41% of the Senate would be forced to change (Seelye, 1995) (Congressional Amendment to Limit Congressional Terms, 1996). To appeal to both proponents of congressional term limits, a twenty year limit should be imposed.

These proposed limits would reduce the gridlock of the political process that currently plagues Congress. Furthermore, antagonists will lose the argument that terms impede the steep learning curve of Congress. The opposite contends that Congress is an “on-the-job” training environment and no other political office or career can adequately prepare junior members for the interworking on Washington [D.C.] (Zubler, 1995). In general congressmen require at least four years, with participation as a member to special committees, to learn how Congress truly works. The above proposed limits allow for an adequate turnover of new congressman while still retaining historical base of senior congressman who understand the political process. Additionally, these limits do not harm minor members, independents, in Congress who do not have a large base of supports to continual pull