A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 7, 2025
Bottom line
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Members of Congress, capping House service at three terms and Senate service at two terms, with prior service not counting towards these limits.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms a person may serve in Congress. Specifically, it would cap service in the House of Representatives at three terms (six years) and in the Senate at two terms (twelve years). It also clarifies that terms served before the amendment's ratification would not count towards these limits.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that term limits will reduce the influence of special interests, decrease political careerism, increase responsiveness to constituents, and bring fresh perspectives to Congress. They believe it will make Congress more accountable and less entrenched, fostering a more citizen-led legislature.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that term limits remove experienced legislators, diminish institutional knowledge, empower unelected staff and lobbyists, and limit voter choice. They argue that voters already have the power to impose term limits through elections and that experience is crucial for effective governance.
The bill text is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its direct provisions within a minute.
Article--, Section 1
Limit on Terms for Representatives
This section proposes that no person can be elected to the House of Representatives if they have already served three terms, which equates to six years. The provision clarifies that if a person is elected to fill a vacancy and serves for more than one year of that term, it will be counted as a full term for the purpose of determining eligibility. This aims to enforce a strict limit on the duration an individual can serve in the lower chamber, promoting regular turnover.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this will prevent career politicians from becoming entrenched, fostering a more responsive and citizen-led legislature. It encourages new ideas and reduces the influence of long-standing political machines by ensuring a regular influx of new members.
Critics contend
Critics argue that limiting House terms removes valuable experience and expertise, potentially leading to a less effective legislative body and increasing the power of unelected staff and lobbyists who retain institutional knowledge.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for fresh perspectives and accountability against the potential loss of institutional knowledge and legislative expertise that comes with long-term service.
Article--, Section 2
Limit on Terms for Senators
This section proposes that no person can be elected or appointed to the Senate if they have already served two terms, which translates to twelve years. It specifies that if a person is elected or appointed to fill a vacancy and serves for more than three years of that term, it will be counted as a full term towards the two-term limit. This measure seeks to cap the tenure of Senators, encouraging new leadership and perspectives in the upper chamber.
Article--, Section 3
Non-Retroactive Application of Term Limits
This section explicitly states that any terms served by a Member of Congress before the date this constitutional amendment is officially ratified will not be taken into account when determining their eligibility under the new term limits. This means that incumbent members, regardless of their prior years of service, would effectively start with a 'clean slate' for term counting once the amendment is in effect, allowing them to serve up to the new limits from that point forward.